If I could invite any woman who questions the power of submission to live in my shoes for one week, she would never question it again. She too would stand in awe of God’s amazing protection wrapped tightly around a couple who have truly become one. She would smile and laugh more than she ever has and have her heart bursting with a love she’s never felt before. She would honestly hate her own self for wasting so much time in rebellion – I did.

I’ve been reading through blog posts by Sheila Wray Gregoire for an upcoming topic, and the thing which strikes me the most about her writing is how painfully inconsistent she is. I’ve written about this before, but it goes far beyond stating that she encounters a phenomenon all the time one day and then a few months later declaring that she has never experienced such a thing, or positioning herself as traditional Christian woman while having a masters degree in Women’s studies and considering herself a feminist in all but name:

I have stopped calling myself a feminist, although I do believe in equality, because the term has become so tainted politically.

Sheila’s writing is flat out erratic. I’ve written before about rationalization hamster exhaustion, but she takes this to a whole new level. This is astounding because Sheila isn’t just another blogger; she and her husband hold Christian marriage seminars and she has written five books aimed at women on the topic of Christian marriage. In fact, she not only considers her work a ministry, but she teaches other women to start their own ministries as well. She has been doing all of this for many years, yet there is no consistency in her writings on the core topics she claims to be an expert on. Some of her advice sounds fairly good one day, but then not long after she comes along and directly contradicts herself.

The only thing which is consistent is her penchant for rebellion against the Scripture and finding ridiculous ways to ignore what is plain on the face of it. But this is the point. Sheila’s rebellion against Scripture is directly tied to her being so incredibly untethered. Due to her feminist rebellion she lacks a biblical husband who is a rock she can cling to when her emotions storm over her. Ironically in her too clever by half rationalization of Scripture she has cheated herself out of one of the greatest benefits biblical marriage offers to women.

This all starts with her rebellion against the biblical instruction to wives to submit to their husbands (1 Pet 3:1&5, Eph 5:22&24, Col 3:18, 1 Tim 2:11, Tit 2:5). Sheila is at war with this Scripture, and is very open that it offends her as a woman. I’ve referenced previously how she addresses this in her book, To Love, Honor, and Vacuum: When You Feel More Like a Maid Than a Wife and Mother (P. 116 of the paperback):

Whether we like to be reminded of it or not, the Bible calls for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22).

You may be thinking she is going to follow through with a grudging but otherwise somewhat sane discussion of the topic. However, she then explains that in practice this means wives are to give their husbands lists of chores (delegating housework) so he feels needed and she feels cared for. I don’t blame you if you find this extremely difficult to believe, so please do read more here and then either pick up a copy of the book or use the Amazon search feature to verify that this is what she does.

More recently Sheila took another crack at this core topic to her area of professional and ministerial expertise in Wifey Wednesday: What Does Submission in Marriage Mean? As usual, she starts by explaining how the Scripture makes her feel, and how much it offends her feminist sensibilities (emphasis hers):

Today I want to talk about a word that drives many of us around the bend: SUBMISSION. I have to admit that I still shudder sometimes when pastors preach on this, or when the word comes up, because it has so often become the source of angst in so many marriages. What does it mean? Does it mean that women are lesser? That we have to let him make all the decisions? That my needs don’t matter? In many sermons, it has almost sounded like that.

In other words, to many of us “submission” has a negative connontation. Husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25), and that doesn’t seem to sound negative. But submission, to many women, is a net negative. Part of that is bad teaching we’ve received on it. Part of it is us chafing at it.

She applies some patented extra strength Sheila rationalization in an effort to give the appearance of actually believing in the Bible, and the women reading seem to think they just got a solid message on biblical submission. Yet nowhere in the post does she mention repenting for her rebellion.

Not surprisingly Sheila is also at war with the Bible regarding denial of sex. This is a core tool in the arsenal of a rebellious Christian wife to force her husband to submit, second only to threatening divorce. Sheila simply can’t accept this Scripture because then she won’t be able to dominate her husband. But coming out and stating this plainly would sound, well, unbiblical. As she did with the topic of submission, Sheila instead claims she agrees with the Scripture while twisting it beyond all recognition. In What Does 1 Corinthians 7:5–Do Not Deprive Each Other–Really Mean? she explains that when it says the husband and wife have authority over each other’s bodies so neither has the right to deny the other sex, this actually means each has the right to deny the other sex:

Let’s assume that it’s the wife with the lower libido for a minute (though it certainly isn’t always) and look at it this way:

If her husband’s body belongs to her, then she has the ability to also say, “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.”

Ouch. If your head doesn’t hurt, you aren’t paying attention. Early on in the exegis Sheila explains (emphasis hers):

First, let’s note what this verse does not say. Paul did not write:

Do not refuse one another, except by mutual consent and for a time…

He wrote do not deprive.

Deprive is not the same as refuse. I believe many people interpret this verse to mean refuse.

She then explains that this means a wife should dole out sex to her husband the same way she would manage what her children eat (emphasis mine):

…let’s look more closely at deprive.

If I were to say to you, “do not deprive your child of good food,” what am I implying? I’m saying that your child should get the food that is commonly recognized for good health: three healthy meals a day, with some snacks. I am not saying that every time your child pulls at your leg and says, “Mommy, can I have a bag of cheetos?” that you have to say yes. You are not depriving your child of good food by refusing a request for Cheetos.

When I mentioned Sheila’s mental image of a husband as a child tugging on his mommy-wife’s leg wanting sex, and the mommy-wife deciding whether her husband’s desire for her was “healthy”, my wife pointed out how incredibly unsexy that is. The Bible gave Sheila a husband who was her leader, and that is sexy. But Sheila has a masters degree in Women’s Studies, so she knows better than God. In her superior wisdom Sheila has mentally transformed her husband into at best a kitchen bitch, and at worst a child tugging on her leg wanting to know what kind of sex she will approve.

What Sheila doesn’t understand is the choice isn’t between happy rebellion and miserable submission. It is in fact exactly the opposite. Sheila is robbing herself of the joy of being a wife. My wife takes great pleasure in making herself physically attractive to me by keeping herself thin and her hair long, and especially enjoys modeling new clothes she buys for “husband approval” (our daughter also delights in watching this interaction). Pleasing her husband is one of the great simple joys of being a wife, and this is something women brag about. But Sheila won’t let herself experience this because of her feminism, and in chapter 7 of her book Honey, I Don’t Have a Headache Tonight: Help for Women Who Want to Feel More In the Mood she writes (emphasis mine):

There’s also no need to become what he thinks is pretty. Some men, like my husband, have a preference for women in long hair. Keith, however, is oblivious to all of the mousse and blow drying that would be involved in making my long hair do anything other than hang there limply. I think it’s difficult for most women over thirty to pull off long hair with panache. Cut my hair and highlight it and I look much more sophisticated, and I feel far less frumpy!

Because that would mean that women would have to simply let go of any control. To have control while being malcontent seems better than relinquishing control to increase happiness. A happiness that they really have no conception of and literally cannot imagine.

One of the great tragedies of feminism is how it has left women aching for the very thing they rebelled against. Their yearning for a husband to lead them is palpable in the Marriage and Divorce section of Yahoo Answers. They want it so much, they are very often grateful when I explain to them how to overcome their feminism and let their husband be the leader they are starving for, like this woman, and this woman. Even Sheila’s readers have moments of incredible clarity on this, and a commenter named Kat is an excellent example (emphasis mine):

My sex hang ups come when I start feeling like he is tippy toeing around me and constantly looking to me to make a decision on things…

But all the little “beta” actions wear me out and leave me feeling like I never get to lean on him, that he isn’t there for me if I have a bad day or fall apart. By “beta” I mean things like going back and forth 15 times as we text about whether he wants to do a certain activity with the kids the next day, bc he doesn’t want to just come out and say, “I don’t want to do that.” Or hearing me vent about a relative or one of the kids’ behavior and not stopping me when I let my mouth run too far, because he doesn’t want to upset me more. Argh!

I know a cranky wife can be intimidating, guys, but most girls really appreciate the strength and confidence you show when you are not fazed by her emotions.

She knows she rides a roller coaster,and even if she can’t express it, having a husband who will insist on having a talk when one is needed and who will keep that convo on topic with an aggressive concern for the marriage will encourage and bless her and very likely turn things around after a time!

I think I finally communicated this to my honey yesterday. I explained that feeling in charge when he was around, feeling like EVERYONE in this house looked to me to call the shots, watching him hesitate and come off as soooo sweet and passive, was a HUGE turn off for me.

…I’m talking about wanting my husband to say, “I am going to rip your clothes off when I get home. Put the kids in front of a long movie.” and then doing it, despite my groaning, and convincing me I really did want him to. )) I’m talking about him asking what my schedule was for the day, and then telling me that I was going to take child X with me on those errands while he took W, Y, and Z with him, and he would bring home dinner so don’t cook. Aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh! To be able to lean on him, to see him take an aggressive interest in how the house works and what is going on, to feel like he desires me so much he will not take no for an answer and kisses me out of my stress…

…it’s the stuff our fantasies are made of, guys! Maybe not every woman, but every married girl I know gets starry eyed as they tell stories of their husband leading in such an in-tune and family-focused way, esp if it involves romance and sex.

…guys, lead whether she bats her eyes at you at first or not!… Too much beta-helpfulness can backfire, bc you are presenting as a wimp weaker than she is, and who wants a leading man like that? She wants to feel like your leading lady, not your mother.

297 Responses to Untethered

Pleasing her husband is one of the great simple joys of being a wife, and this is something women brag about.

vs

There’s also no need to become what he thinks is pretty.

Women know instinctively which one of these statements is true and which is false, but because one takes work and the other allows a woman to be lazy, they want to find a way to make striving to be attractive for your husband something bad that a man imposes on his wife instead of something fun (though hard work) that she is pleased to be able to do for him.

It amazes me that it took all of this time, waiting for the rise of the manosphere, before actual good relationship advice got out there. And it’s even more amazing that people still go to “gurus” like her for advice after all of this time.

I wish I could get paid to give advice to people to continue doing what they’re already doing even though it isn’t working for them.

I’m glad you quoted that first comment by Sarah’s Daughter, because I meant to comment on it the other day and forgot. That’s one of the most beautiful — and most beautifully feminine — things I’ve read in a long time. As a man, there would be few things more fulfilling than hearing words like that from your wife. It really is sad that most women today haven’t experienced that, and aren’t even aware it’s possible.

Sheila completely misses the point about long hair, in her attempt to rationalize putting her wishes ahead of his. He wouldn’t care of it just “hung there limply”; to a man, that’s what it’s for. Sure, do fancy stuff with it on special occasions if you like, but men who like long hair (by which I mean “men”), like it fine just hanging there.

Would someone please explain what submission looks like in a biblical marriage. The only people explaining the terms are people like Shelia Gregory. Those who think differently seem to focus more on what submission is not. While that is helpful, a clear cut “this is what submission is, this is what you do” would be helpful. Or is submission like porn and art- you know it when you see it?

Even the quoted Kat ended up telling her husband how to lead her. If she tells him how to lead is it really submission?

The thing I have noticed about submission in my own marriage is that it doesn’t feel like so many women seem to think it is today. We had a brief discussion of this this weekend starting here. I stated that it feels like serenity. A commenter, Phedre, followed up so very nicely with this, saying:

It *is* difficult to put into words. Serene describes the ‘feeling’ of it, but its more than a feeling. It’s a state. It’s the state of being exactly as you were meant to be. It’s a state of alignment rather than discord with the world/existence/life. It’s a state of utter Rightness.
And the amazing thing about being in this state is that it enables you to see more clearly whether other things in your life contribute to or clash with that alignment. It helps you to filter out the crap that before you would have tried to address by rationalization.
Once you have experienced this kind of clarity, no amount of screaming from the feminist camp could possibly sway you, because you have felt what’s like to live in Truth.

Submission, to many women, is a place of doing for your husband because, not only does he want these things from his wife but the wife finds joy in giving them. Do I always agree with my husband having the last word? Of course not. But in my submission I know that he not only deserves that from me but, even though I might be frustrated in the moment, I am happy to give it to him. It is my role in our marriage and I find myself honored for keeping it. I don’t do it because of the honor given. It was a side effect of it, just as a side effect of my husband being a good leader was my submission.

If that sounds rambling, I do apologize, but it is very difficult to describe. I am glad you wrote this Dalrock. I have been reading more about submission for a couple of weeks wanting to write a post about it and have been struggling with it. When I do finally finish it, I will definitely be linking this piece.

In marriage that would mean that a wife relinquishes control of the marriage and her own internal wills to her husband in matters of all importance.

It’s a minority view, I know, but since many women (at least in the USA) find submission described this way demeaning, one can look at it through the lens of submitting *to the marriage*, with the husband as the leader of the marriage.

This is a game of semantics that the feminists have played for a long time, to great effect. Religious people, and people who like marriage, ought to start playing hardball in the other direction. It also makes sense, since one can honestly point out that the husband is also submitting: to the marriage. Both parties submit to God or the higher power, and to the rules set down in the Bible (or Qurán, or whatever), which give them their roles. The husband is the ultimate authority in most regards, and the wife is the authority when he’s away. (See Athol Kay or Samuel Solomon for an explanation of “captain and first officer” ideal).

In reality, the husband is required to submit his will daily to the relationship. He has to get up in the cold and trudge off to work, to get that paycheck. He has to get up in the night to check out what sounds like a burglar, etc. etc.. The wife has to take care of the house, sex him up, keep herself and the kids healthy, and like that.

They find it demeaning because it means they lose control. If they find that demeaning, then Christian marriage is not for them. If they want to keep control, they need to take full responsibility for their actions and utterly refuse any help from men in anything in life. That means no affirmative action, no Chivalry, no free birth control, no government jobs, no being catered to by the church, no men sacrificing for them on the battlefield, no ‘being loved by their husbands as Christ loves the Church”, none of it, not one bit. If they do not submit to the men in their lives, they are rebellious mutineers and should be treated as such.

If they find submission so abhorred they should denounce Christianity and start a new femtastic religion, call it “FemStatism” as it’s already almost instituted throughout Western Culture anyway.

Here’s a quick way to get them to understand. If they cannot understand this, don’t get married to them at all.

You cannot lead those who do not first submit themselves to your authority. Yes ladies, that means that if you or I or any Christian does not FIRST submit to God and Jesus, we shall NOT be saved. No matter God’s love for us, he cannot lead us without us first submitting to his will for us. That is free will, we either choose God’s leadership and get saved or we do not.

In the same way, you either submit, fully, to your husband or you are not under his leadership and he owes you not one shred of sacrifice.

The social and economic order conspires with the patriarchy by default. Thugtician had a great video on this years ago, which I wish I could find.

The best way to win this argument is not to show some dame a list of choices, and hope she chooses you. The way to prevail is to structure the society in such a way that patriarchy is the only choice. “You can either get married and do your part, which will lead to you being loved and protected, or you can choose to be a road whore.” That’s crass but that is the issue, ultimately.

Feminism is a very bourgeois movement, which benefits a small group (wealthy men and middle-class women) to the detriment of everyone else. As such, it is self-correcting. You see that in places like Greece or the ghetto. There simply isn’t enough money to keep “empowering” (LOL) women on the backs of working class men. The scenario above is due to return at some point, where marriage and the family will be the only choice people have.

Naturally I wanted to find out more about this Dame. I had the recollection that she is a Roman Catholic, (and thus is probably forbidden from reading The Bible – at least the older part) in which case of course I would recomend that she visit Father O’Shaughnessy for Confession. What goes on in the confessional is a matter between them and her God, however I cannot find it, but what I did find was this:

Firstly, aside from her degree in Sociology (emphasis on women’s studies) I cannot trace any form of Theological degree or other Divinical study, but as they say, if you have the calling you are half way there.

Secondly, I learn she hails from Ontario which as we know is the very heart of aggressive Feminism.

Thirdly, she comes from a broken home. ‘Mum is amazing’ she says and Dad left when she was two, which usually means Mum threw Dad out, as I suppose it must do here.

Fourthly, she seems to be sex-mad, with books titles like 31 Days to Better Orgasms and Sorry Honey I have a headache tonight. Frankly a brothel would appear to be more her natural habitat.

My view therefore is that with any number of money-making best-sellers and lecture tours behind her, this is sexually titilated commerce dressed as religion – I even searched for the Pay-Pal button. Nice smile though. This does seem to me to be a peculiarily North American phenomena – I cannot think that there is anyone in Britain who aspires to give religious guidance outside of the established church, and the only problem there is whether women should be Bishops and whether the Bishops may or may not be practising Homosexualists. Really. What I mean to imply is that I don’t think the problem of submission ever arises 0r at least I cannot recall ever hearing a sermon on the subject, but perhaps I have forgotten and I haven’t heard a sermon for a while. As with abortion it is something we do not talk about.

I looked up the word defraud in a modern dictionary: “to deprive of something by deception or fraud.” Noah’s dictionary adds: “to deprive of right”

I then looked up fraud: “deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage”

Put it altogether and deprive does not mean what “Sheila” thinks it means. It’s a depriving based on fraudulent and deceptive grounds. Listen to the excuses women come up with not to submit to their husbands, using deception and dishonesty for their own perceived profitable gain, and tell me if they don’t all sound like a bunch of frauds to you.

I love your blog, but a simple Google Image search showed me why she writes what she does. She lost. The only thing losers can do (and they know it) is drag others down with them. Misery loves company.

To be able to structure the entire society requires one, or at least the group one belongs to, has control of society. This society is so utterly devoid of God’s Grace that a top down approach cannot work at all and the very Church that should be dictating God’s order is hopelessly outmatched by the secular State.

I always used to wonder if Heaven would be awfully crowed when I was a small child, since Christians always spoke about saving everyone. Now I wonder no more, the path to Heaven is narrow and requires absolute submission to enter. Not many humans are that intent to be on their knees before anyone else, let alone God.

Hi Dalrock, I’ve been lurking over here a bit trying to learn more about game/the manosphere and how it intersects with traditional Christian marriage. Since I appreciate a lot of what you’ve written I hate for my first comment to be in disagreement, but I really feel like you (and bloggers like you) aren’t giving Sheila Gregoire anything like a fair shake. I get that there are areas in which she could be doing a better job, and I would love to see her challenged to improve in those areas. On the other hand, I’ve been reading her blog for several months now and have been really encouraged to have more fun in bed and enjoy being a wife to my husband.

In her article on submission she has the following humdinger: “It (submission) doesn’t mean simply letting him make all the decisions. Lots of women do this, and then they reserve the right to say–or think–”I told you so” afterwards.” (THIS! I have read so much on submission in which the authors just seem to assume that the reader has married a moron and can silently eye roll her way through marriage and still be “submissive.”)

Also: “it comes down to understanding that God is not as interested in my happiness as He is in my holiness and obedience.” (Amen.)

As for the other article – I used to have a lot of shame and frustration over saying “no.” Now my default is yes. Honestly, my husband and I have a good sex life, and I even initiate. But there have been times when I really just needed sleep or time for my brain to unwind, and I’d get angry/frustrated that I wasn’t responding the way I “needed” to/my husband was pushing me when I was stupid tired. Articles like this one helped me talk with my husband about both how I wanted us to have lots of great sex and how I wanted to sometime be able to say “later” without all the guilt and frustration.

In conclusion, I get there are areas in which men bloggers (particularly of the game/red pill variety) do and should have concerns and exceptions with what Sheila. I just feel like a blogger who repeatedly tells women to have more flirty, fabulous sex with their husbands and to remember that obedience/holiness comes before feelings isn’t the enemy here.

[D: Welcome Natalie. I have to head out now but will respond to this later in the day.]

Natalie, ask yourself a question. Is a good leader one who does not make mistakes ever? Or is a leader one who makes mistakes but learns from them and does better in future because he knows that those who he leads are in his corner?

What I’m trying to get at is the simply fallacy of a good leader being someone who always makes the correct decision and how utterly detrimental this ideal is to actual leadership. A leader makes mistakes, sometimes often, but because those he leads have absolute trust in him and have submitted to him, he has the responsibility and reassurance to learn and do a better job next time around.

Wives expecting their husbands to make correct decisions all the time will end up with a piss poor marriage because they have not truly submitted to their husbands. In their minds, they only submit when the decision is correct so they are not really in their husband’s corner are they?

If you submit to your husband you are to completely attach your cart to his horse. You are to become one flesh and to enjoy success and endure failure as a couple. Your husband will make mistakes and it’s your duty to both comfort him and provide him your own advise in a comforting way so that he can learn.

Condensing all the above. A man will be a better leader when he has absolute trust in those he is leading. If he has to worry about constant approval or constant shame and nagging when he makes the incorrect decision, he will be worse for wear and make a poor leader.

Natalie: drawing from my earlier comment, the issue is not saying “no” but saying no based on fraudulent reasons. If you say “honey, I just came back from chemo treatment, so I’m not really up for it tonight,” I would be inclined to say that would be a legitimate reason. ;-)

Sheila though seems to suggest ANY reason is legitimate because hey, the husband’s body belongs to the wife too, so it’s all good. Maybe she contradicts this in other writings, but I think that demonstrates D’s whole point that her writings are indeed erratic.

“and then doing it, despite my groaning, and convincing me I really did want him to.”

Nice, so we are supposed to risk the rape charge on the off chance you might be bullshitting us, like you do 99% of the time, for the 1% of the time you actually wanted to be ignored, for your someone else in charge rape fantasy.

Can someone explain this to me. Why do women have such a problem with looking sexy for their husbands? I don’t get it. If I do get married I would like to be able to remain attractive for my wife. I would want to do it because I love her and for my future health, I don’t see it as a duty as such. So, can someone please explain why one would want to go out of their way to put a wedge in their marriage because they don’t think their husband deserves the respect and love of a woman who tries to remain attractive and sexy?

Feminist Hater: The excuse I heard is because this proves the husband was only attracted to her physically, not to her mind, or something.

Ironically, women go out of their way to dress and look good in order to impress… other women. But not for their men, because that’s just sexist.

Me, if I meet someone wonderful the last thing I’d want to do is let myself go and wind up looking like Depardieu right after a trip to the Bellagio buffet. Somebody who is worth her weight in gold does not deserve that.

Frank, exactly. A truly loving and submissive wife deserves your support, love and affection and duty of care. Marriage is a two way street and by staying fit and healthy and yes, sexy or handsome, for your spouse just makes the duties part of marriage that much simpler.

It also sets a great example for your children. Nothing in this world makes children more happy and confident than knowing that their parents are really in love.

I have stopped reading Sheila. As Dalrock points out, inconsistencies abound. And they are usually inconsistencies in favour of women. Women who feel put out by their husbands.

I will not deny that her stated mission is probably noble-ish. However, to accomplish that mission, the adherent MUST be open and willing. It is not a “ministry” to the hard-hearted. Ooops…my mistake. When you uncover the layers, it is a feel good ministry to the hard-hearted. She will provide justification after justification to the woman who refuses to satisfy her husband (as pointed out in dalrock’s post) but is on the record that a husband must satisfy his wife’s needs. This is the point at which I bailed on this woman.

ar10308 says:
October 22, 2012 at 11:52 pm
You also forgot about how the wife is commanded to submit and obey her husband…

“And by force I’m not talking about just physical force. There’s emotional blackmail…”
If the woman can refuse Biblical sex, why can’t the man refuse witholding emotionally? Are you saying that a woman is entitled to emotional fulfillment and intimacy no matter what her husband thinks? What if he just doesn’t feel like listening or talking to her?

Sheila says:
October 23, 2012 at 12:38 pm

Yes, I am. It’s called doing the right thing, regardless of what your spouse does.

So, above Sheila entirely puts the burden on the husband to A) accept the specific offerings that she will mete out, and B) provide all the emotional support she demands. The topic, first of a series, describes how and why a woman should feel righteous about defrauding/depriving/denying. It provides a very immature schoolgirl approach to married sexuality, suggesting that even what seems to be one-sided “giving” is selfish on the part of a receiver. What’s wrong with a BJ of mercy (Thanks, SSM) if wife is not up to more? “Oh, but that is not mutual.” Of course it is. just different.

Fun stuff… I’ll say from my own experience the hyperactive hamster stuff gets tiring. But it’s not hard to see through her act and see the destructive influence that Sheila Gregoire has on all marriage, not to mention Christian marriage. She’s a rebel against God through and through who’s sole goal is teaching women to rebel against the pattern of Godly Christian marriage.

1. Find legitimate Christian teaching that riles up her feminist sensibilities.
2. Instead of accepting it and magnifying it on her site, twist the accompanying Scripture involved until it has more knots than the bag of pretzels on the kitchen counter, and means something that doesn’t offend her feminist sensibilities, and in fact teaches that husbands submit to their wives and wives don’t gotta do none of that stuff.
3. Paint those that hold the correct Scriptural view as holding some extremist view repugnant to everyone.
4. Throw in a few sex posts for titillation teaching that sex with your husband doesn’t have to be totally icky and disgusting – and force your husband’s submission to boot – by fostering a femDOM environment where sex is handed out as a reward for compliance to her headship. Portray those that point out the wickedness of this plan and the results of it as advocating for porn use.
5. Draw all the women with feminist sensibilities in them to read your books, buy your stuff, and pay you to speak at their events. Profit!

Draw all the women with feminist sensibilities in them to read your books, buy your stuff, and pay you to speak at their events. Profit!

I really think that this is the ultimate motivation for most of these types (not just Sheila, but that fat/hag duo Joel and Kathy Davisson and the thousands of others). It’s a modern day circus sideshow/tent revival hybrid, where people get to be separated from their (husband’s) cash in order to be patted on the head and given a cheap ego boost.

I’m sorta cynical, but, really, I don’t think these people are sincere at all. I am forced to admire Gregoire’s ability to take an utterly worthless degree (women’s studies lol) and leverage it into making herself a minor celebrity, fleecing the suckers in the process.

Women dress to compete with other women. Having secured a provider, there is no need to dress to please a man. He is snagged and on the hook. To do so would compromise her status as a strong, independent woman. . . in the eyes of other women.

Thus, a danger sign for any man is the woman changing her usual manner of dress or appearance….

@FeministHater
“Can someone explain this to me. Why do women have such a problem with looking sexy for their husbands?”
Looking sexy takes time, dedication and effort. Why waste resources on a safe bet? It is a easy as that. Most take their husbands for granted and let themselves go. It is pure laziness, nothing else.

@ Freckled
I agree it is in large part laziness. But I think there is also at times a little something else, too: purposefully trying to make herself unappealing to her husband so that he will be uninterested in sex. If a woman has lost attraction for her man, she might feel guilty turning him down, so she might be able to skirt the whole issue if he finds her too yucky-looking to pursue.

Why should a strong, independent woman bother to seek affirmation from a husband?

A cute facebook posting will get numerous likes.
A dating website entry will garner attention, sexual offers and more affirmation.

Pre wall women only need a pulse to get attention when emotional gratification is needed. Why should they bother trying to impress? Beta orbiters and manginas of all stripes will happily strive to fill the endless void demanding attention and affirmation. Because shes awesome, of course. . .

One of the reasons why so many women rebel against the idea of relinquishing control is this: they make their preferences into requirements to a masculine degree. Giving up control for them means that life is scary. A really feminine woman has preferences that she clearly communicates to her husband, but she is unwilling to “go to bat” for anything short of a serious infraction. To a submissive woman, harmony is the goal and her character draws the best out of the people around her.

I have lots of preferences, but not demands. And I trust God to work all things out for the good of those who love Him.

Feminists go to bat over anything and everything. They have to have everything “just so”. When one’s attitude is warlike, one cannot experience peace. Feminists think that conservative women are “uptight” but the reality is that the submissive woman is not the one with the rigid set of rules that have to be followed in order for her to act decently towards her husband.

One other defining characteristic of submission is gratefulness/appreciation. A woman can give willingly and eagerly to a man she appreciates. She eagerly obeys him because she wants to please him. Cultivating a thankful heart is a lost skill in the age of oversatiation.

Along with allowing a husband to fail and not lose face is the commitment to never return evil for evil. A good woman makes it easy for her man to please her by cultivating the ability to find pleasure in small things.

I think that women seek excitement in the wrong place… travel, people outside the marriage, etc. I think that is what God made sex FOR. Passion to brighten the day. These women have no idea of the life that exists within God’s plan.

Ok, I really don’t want to become the resident Sheila Gregoire apologist on this comment thread because that’s a torch I only carry for people I know personally. However, I will attempt to respond to a couple points.

@Frank and @CoffeeCrazed,

What I get from reading Sheila’s blog is that I should be looking for ways to have more (and better) sex even when I’m tired/busy/scatterbrained/etc. A more sexually generous life is always the goal. However, in the context of a sexually generous marriage women (and men) don’t have to be so hung up on whether they are depriving their spouse if they say “no” or “later” at a particular moment. Although I can’t say for sure, I believe Sheila would say this works the same way with men offering their wives emotional intimacy. Sure men should be providing it, but if in the same week you regularly kiss your wife, text her, read/talk together, or however y’all connect then that night you come home dead beat and just want to bury your head in your computer/old car/sports team for the rest of the evening it’s not going to be such a big deal.

She then explains that this means a wife should dole out sex to her husband the same way she would manage what her children eat (emphasis mine):

“…let’s look more closely at deprive.

If I were to say to you, “do not deprive your child of good food,” what am I implying? I’m saying that your child should get the food that is commonly recognized for good health: three healthy meals a day, with some snacks. I am not saying that every time your child pulls at your leg and says, “Mommy, can I have a bag of cheetos?” that you have to say yes. You are not depriving your child of good food by refusing a request for Cheetos.”

Two big problems with Sheila’s Cheetos story:

1. It gives the wife (Mommy) total say on when sex is available or not.

2. The child does not get Cheetos because the child has already had three healthy meals and two snacks that day. So that means if the husband has already had sex five time that day then the Cheetos request could be too much for that day. Once or twice a month is not five times per day!

I would like to second Opus’s comment about Sheila when he writes “My view therefore is that with any number of money-making best-sellers and lecture tours behind her, this is sexually titilated commerce dressed as religion”

And also second Frank’s comment to Natalie about Sheila when he writes “Maybe she contradicts this in other writings, but I think that demonstrates D’s whole point that her writings are indeed erratic.”

Lastly I would suggest that the feminist interaction with the word of God isn’t very different form the interaction between Jesus and the wealthy man who offers to follow Christ. The wealthy man initially describes who wonderful he himself is (via faithfulness to the laws of Moses), and then ask Christ what more should he (or maybe can he possibly) do. Of course Christ asks him to make the one sacrifice that the wealth man finds hardest to make. We must all be willing to sacrifice everything in the name of the Lord. Maybe, just maybe ladies, you are ask to submit to your husbands because it is the one sacrifice that is hardest for you to make. If you cannot submit to the man who has promised to love and sacrifice for you, and whose love you can see and touch, why should the Lord believe you when you say that you will submit to the Lord. A Lord you cannot see nor touch and whose love you take on faith. Your mother Eve did not submit to the will of the Lord, and she was a lot closer to his presence than you are.

Cheetos and “good food” are not mutually exclusive. You can give your child Cheetos and still not deprive him of good food AS LONG AS you still provide him good food.

But that analogy doesn’t follow into therefore being able to refuse sex, UNLESS you can have sex and not have sex at the same time.

Let’s try a substitution here:

“If I were to say to you, “do not deprive your husband of sex,” what am I implying? I’m saying that your husband should get the sex that is commonly recognized as having sex: sticking his penis into your vagina. I am not saying that every time your husband wants to have sex with you and says, “Wife, let’s have sex.” that you have to say yes. You are not depriving your husband of sex by refusing his request to have sex.”

News flash Sheila, men are not children, we can decide very well on our own when we would like sex. Thanks!

Most of these women ought to be down on their knees, giving thanks to whatever god or gods they worship, that their husbands are still attracted to them. It ain’t much of a trick these days to wander into a coffee shop and game the waitress into a bit of no-strings hanky-panky.

Bottom line: If your husband still wants to nail you, then you’ve got it good with a fella who has options (whether he knows it or not) and is voluntarily giving it up to be your exclusive provider of peen. In context, ladies, you should ride him hard and as often as possible.

Hi Dalrock, I’ve been lurking over here a bit trying to learn more about game/the manosphere and how it intersects with traditional Christian marriage. Since I appreciate a lot of what you’ve written I hate for my first comment to be in disagreement, but I really feel like you (and bloggers like you) aren’t giving Sheila Gregoire anything like a fair shake. I get that there are areas in which she could be doing a better job, and I would love to see her challenged to improve in those areas. On the other hand, I’ve been reading her blog for several months now and have been really encouraged to have more fun in bed and enjoy being a wife to my husband.

In her article on submission she has the following humdinger: “It (submission) doesn’t mean simply letting him make all the decisions. Lots of women do this, and then they reserve the right to say–or think–”I told you so” afterwards.” (THIS! I have read so much on submission in which the authors just seem to assume that the reader has married a moron and can silently eye roll her way through marriage and still be “submissive.”)

I agree that Sheila really does offer some good advice to women sometimes. However, she does this all from a frame of rebellion against the core teachings of the New Testament on marriage. Consider the question of whether she should be teaching at all. The exception for women teaching is Titus 2, but Titus 2 would require that she teach submission. She can’t teach it if she isn’t at peace with it. But she does have these moments of insight, where she notices that what she really wants is a biblical husband and marriage. You brought up one example, and I brought up the example of her reader Kat getting it and Sheila being in sudden enthusiastic (but temporary) agreement. But what you won’t be able to find is where Sheila has repented for teaching countless wives things like submission means giving your husband a list of housework chores (if you have a copy of the book, please confirm that she actually wrote this for my readers). So either:

1) Sheila doesn’t know that she is being incredibly foolish when she says submission is giving your husband a list of chores, that wives should imagine themselves doling out sex like cheetos to children, and that when the Apostle Paul clearly wrote that we don’t have the authority to deny our bodies to our spouse that he actually meant the opposite.
or
2) Sheila somewhere along the way realized how foolish her teachings have been, and has never repented and clearly corrected the record nor has she even ceased being so erratic.

Which is more frightening for a Christian “ministry”, 1 or 2?

What it comes down to is since Sheila takes nearly every possible position on any given topic, the women who read her will take away what they were personally looking for. Women who want justification to withhold sex and dominate their husbands will find that, and they certainly won’t find anything resembling a serious rebuke. Women like you who want to find ways to follow their husband’s leadership will also find some of that and hopefully disregard the rest.

One more point. I just want to reemphasize that the complaint isn’t that I took Sheila out of context. If someone feels that way then please do me the favor of laying out the charge so I can address it. The complaint is that while Sheila really does say all of the profoundly foolish things I point out, she also says some good things. Sometimes she immediately follows one with the other, but this is simply how erratic she is.

Unfortunately, women are very bad at rebuking one another. I wish that weren’t the case, but this is why I’ve just given up on all-women prayer groups or Bible studies. The urge to cater to the lowest common rationalization hamster always seems to win. This is evidenced by the comment threads at TLHaV and Mrs. Gregoire’s tendency to contradict herself.

One of the fixes to a woman like Sheila in continuation with 8oxer is that the question should be to the man if he has kids with that women. Any woman the behaves or talks the way she does is an unworthy woman. Rather than try to save her or a relationship with her tell her she is unworthy and vet another woman as a worthy replacement.
I will hand it to you Dalrock you have had a huge effect on the herd. The truth is becoming hip. A rebellious woman is using truth to deceive. Truth is getting stronger the whole manospere with commentors has made that happen.
Sarah’s daughter that was bad ass what you wrote there. You ever tell a woman that infront of your husband there is not a woman in the world that could temped him nor a dragon that stands a chance. You have some good stuff too Stingray. Very impressive coming from any american woman these days because you have absolutely nothing to encourage you to behave or think in such a way not even the church.

I know you already have some responses to your question about why women have such a problem with looking sexy for their husbands, and while I don’t disagree that laziness, no longer needing to attract a husband or no longer desiring sex with the husband may play a role, there is another dynamic at play as well. From the time they are very young, most women are taught that our body is our own and that no one else has the right to dictate what we wear or how we present ourselves as that would interfere with our self expression and telling the world “who we are.” For many women, their appearance is very important to their sense of self and identity, so changing it can be a very big deal. Being told to dress or not dress a certain way can result in a very emotional reaction (for example the slutwalks that began after a police officer informed university students that not wearing revealing clothing could be a safety measure to avoid rape).

Despite the dogma that we should dress to express ourselves, the reality is that we do change what we are wearing to please others, for example to comply with dress standards at work or with social norms, but when we do it is for something or someone above us in a social hierarchy. Most women I know don’t have a problem looking sexy on their own terms (at least in terms of implementing short term measures like dressing a certain way or wearing makeup – not everyone is willing in implement long term measures such as being fit), but changing something about your appearance to please someone else is a direct expression of their power over you. To give that power to a husband is a very strong statement that you are willing to submit to him in areas that are actually important to you. I think the reason many women are resistant to looking sexy for their husbands is that they aren’t willing to cede that power to him.

@Dalrock, Thanks for your response. Unfortunately I can’t confirm your take on her book since I don’t own that one, but I can discuss her other points. And I’d like to modify my “complaint” assuming that your further comment is likewise addressed to me. I don’t believe this is a case of a foolish blogger with a few good one-liners thrown in. I believe this a well-intentioned blogger who really does believe women should be sexually generous and who isn’t as robust or as clear in some of these areas as she should be. Hence my contention that she should be both challenged in her ideas and not treated as an enemy of men’s happiness.

The cheetos thing has unfortunately become a hang-up here. Her point is simply that given an atmosphere of abundance the occasional postponement or negative does not in fact equal deprivation. The analogy is just an analogy! It’s something women can wrap their heads around. Feeding your kids lots of great meals is good! Having lots of great sex with your husband is good! Saying no to an apple or a quickie doesn’t necessarily make you a bad mom or a bad wife. Explain to me how this is different from what she’s saying?

As for depriving each other, I hear a lot of people saying that she’s absolutely wrong, but could I get a better breakdown of why she’s actually wrong? If neither the man’s body nor the woman’s body belongs to themselves then why does that mean a woman can’t legitimately use that prerogative to say “in the morning please?” I get that for a lot of American women this is the default. I get that. Most men aren’t getting a healthy sex life in marriage. However, some women, particularly some Christian women, just feel like they need a little room to make their legitimate needs heard. Doesn’t mean some princesses won’t take than and run with it, but there are ditches on both sides of the road.

In conclusion, I agree that Sheila could sometimes be clearer. But if your objection is that women who want to dominate and sexually defraud their husbands will find rationalization there, then you effectively reduce women’s marriage advice to “Shut your mouth, spread your legs, and cook dinner.” Not so bad as advice goes, but eventually someone is going to need details that might possibly include tidbits which could nourish a crazy wife hamster. Then again those things can grow on hairspray and chicken nuggets, so I really don’t think that’s the issue.

Her erratic behavior is what the changing of the herd looks like for a woman trying to be on the cutting edge. She does not hardly steer the herd but does want to be out front. She is in full rebellion and will always be with all of the female characteristics. If society changes enough she will be a prime example of the wicked selfish female selfishly behaving with loving submissive virtue out of pure self serving selfish wickedness.
As more and more of the manosphere gets out more women on the edges will show up.

@ greyghost,you have absolutely nothing to encourage you to behave or think in such a way not even the church.

Thank you for the compliment.

Regarding your statement above, that’s not really true. I behave and think this way because of my husband. He has become my herd. I didn’t always think this way and I owe my turn around to him and the reading around the Sphere to solidify things in my mind.

Natalie
Don’t take any crap from your husband or any other man. Most of these maonspere bloggers are bitter losers that basically think women should be knocked up in the kicten cooking waiting for her abusive husband to come in and bend her over for a good spanking and sex. i can tell by your comments you don’t think this submissive tstuff is right and should reserve some independence and control. just follow your heart and use good judgement ans have faith in happiness to let you know things are right.

Now stingray, how many women do you know that will openly announce humbly that there christian behavior in marriage was most inflluenced by their husband? i stand by what i said you are on your own but are a special person know it or not.

The few women that do say something are ignored by other women, especially if their man indicates that woman is ‘interesting.’ That demonstrates the competitiveness and the ‘mate guarding’ of women and the reluctance to behave in a direct way. Instead woman-to-woman interations become covert and are often passive-aggressive, but slathered in niceness.

And men, unfortunately, are easily distracted by a flirtatious woman that inflames the thought that there might be women that actually like sex. This is the Beta Fantasy. Few men realize that a man must grasp the Brass Ring” and define his own reality. It is his life adventure and it is her choice to join him.

The real shame is that, from my readings at Unmasking Feminism I understand that women did fiercely rebuke those who stepped out of line pre-women’s suffrage. And even today, “the sisterhood” will happily rebuke and exhort any woman who is not living up to the feminist dream (as Dalrock has posted before). Women, being prone to the herd mentality, are more than willing and able to pass judgement and rebuke – IF THE HERD AGREES WITH THEM. If they won’t be “left in the cold” for doing so, they can stand up for what’s right – or what they believe is right. But it is a rare woman indeed (if any woman?) who will do so alone.

Possible dead link in @7man’s comment…Brass Ring. That I’d like to see!

Second what @greyghost advised @Natalie and just want to advise girrrrrrls to always be theirrrrrrselves. Any man who can’t take you as you are with spunk and sass certainly has issues. Cultivate that moxie, modern men love girrrrls with a fine perky set of moxies.

And as a side note, some of us are more able to stand up in the anonymity of the internet than we could in real life (which is why you can FIND woman-run counter-cultural blogs like Unmasking Feminism and The Woman and the Dragon), but, at a certain point, even in the safety of anonymity gives way to the community we join online – and, once again, we have the same problem. After all, they may not know our REAL names, but we do have an online REPUTATION to protect. This is not meant as a slight, but just a general observation.

And as far as Sheila goes, since she doesn’t have the cover of anonymity to protect her in real life, she feels the pressure of the herd that much more forcefully. For what it’s worth, I do believe her intentions are good, but you know what they say about intentions, vis a vis the road to hell and all… I am grateful for her blog, because it was through her I found Dalrock, and from there I found the red pill and what real Christianity should look like – not namby-pamby “spiritualism” that rules the day. For this reason, I still read her work sympathetically, and then read Dalrock’s dissections and go, “wow, how did I not see that?”

Women are heavily programmed for herd compliance, because in pre-modern tribes, and survival of weaker people (women, old men, manginas) was dependent on the tribe.

The men who could survive on their own in the jungle could afford to non-comply with the tribe. These men were either physically stronger, or at least very resourceful. The strongest could even start a new tribe, and attract women away from nearby tribes.

Thus, herd compliance is paramount to women. We see this even today :

1) Women divorce if others in their group divorce.
2) Women will date interracially if a couple of her friends have done it, but rarely will a woman want to be the first one to do it.
3) Women invest money based on what meets herd approval, rather than actual returns. That’s right, betting against whatever a group of women think is a great investment is a very robust strategy for actual dollar returns (which again, is NOT the primary objective in the way women invest money).
4) Women vote for whatever they think meets herd approval (which itself is driven by television in the modern age). Hence, left-wing, woman-centric thought is culturally dominant, with even the Republican party only drifting leftward, rather than the other way.

[i]If I could invite any woman who questions the power of submission to live in my shoes for one week, she would never question it again. She too would stand in awe of God’s amazing protection wrapped tightly around a couple who have truly become one. She would smile and laugh more than she ever has and have her heart bursting with a love she’s never felt before. She would honestly hate her own self for wasting so much time in rebellion – I did.[/i]

@ Ellie “Feminists go to bat over anything and everything. They have to have everything “just so”. When one’s attitude is warlike, one cannot experience peace. Feminists think that conservative women are “uptight” but the reality is that the submissive woman is not the one with the rigid set of rules that have to be followed in order for her to act decently towards her husband.”

I think that you just summed the difference between a feminist attitude and the attitude of a Feminine woman very well. I asked my husband if he thinks I am submissive and he said that I was more cooperative. I don’t have to have the little things go my way. We are in agreement on big things of course because I wouldn’t have married him if we weren’t.

@T: Submission to your husband does indeed mean following his lead and instruction and working to please him. If you do not trust his judgement, then he either has poor judgement and you married poorly, or you need to learn submission. From you posts so far, I can only assume the latter.

Long before my daughter married, I gave her a copy of ME? OBEY HIM? be Elizabeth Handford. She is a Baptist minister’s wife. He was having trouble counseling unhappy wives, and she volunteered to work with those women.

The book is bible based. She quotes extensively. Be sure to get the Second Edition because she includes all the whining and belly-aching from women who explain God had no idea what a loser her husband was, etc.

My favorite tale is the woman whose husband was committing adultery and the kids were on drugs. A real mess. She started submitting, and within one year the husband was faithful again and the kids were doing great. There are more such tales.

Handford makes it clear the best part of a submissive marriage is the woman gets to decide whom she marries. My daughter had already decided she wanted a submissive marriage, so she picked a leader. At one point in time she had two suitors. One said he did not think a man should be the family leader, there should be a partner ship.

The other one said he would be glad to take responsibility for major decisions if she wished.

Guess who got the boot?

She has been married 15 years now, and both admit they have never had a real quarrel.

So, for the woman who asked, let me tell you what she said.

When a decision has to be made, since they are compatible people, in MOST cases they simply agree as soon as they both understand the issue.

When they do not agree, she says, with no further ado, you are the man and the head of this family. So, we are going to do it your way.

Let me point out she is a scientist, with a Master’s in Science Education. So, over the years she has observed the results of her acceptance of his decisions.

In MOST cases when they have done it his way, it turned out he was right. His male brain understood something she missed, so he was right. What a concept, right? I call this God 1 Feminists 0.

Once in a great while, when they do it his way, he was wrong. But, she has also calculated the cost of his errors. The cost of his mistakes are very negligible!

Now, here is the main point to her: IN EXCHANGE FOR THIS, SHE HAS PEACE IN HER HOUSE!!!!!

Most women do not want peace in their house. They want their own way in all things, and the screams go on and on until the husband obeys. That has been my observation over 70 years, and I stand by it. She knows this, too, which is why she says it that way.

There is another issue as well. She has a very smart; very clever man working hard to make her life go smoothly. He can study things, investigate issues, without assuming no matter what he comes up with she will be screaming at him. He can make a plan and knows he will be “allowed” to make it work with her support. Which is also very relevant.

She is not a trained rat, the words of one fiend I met years ago. She has traveled to Australia and Germany, alone on Science teacher grants, And, has also driven alone thousands of miles across the US to visit family. But, because she married smart, and unleashed her husband to use his abilities to their fullest, her life is good. They built an expensive house on a golf course and paid it off, I think like 5 years.

I cannot even imagine her giving him a shit test. Shit tests are not compatible with submission.

@ alpha mission – I do trust his judgment. Wouldn’t have married him if I didn’t. I’m not sure if that counts towards submission as he and I are in agreement about just about everything of import to either of us. He generally makes the call that I would’ve made, even when Im not there to give my input. We are so well matched that I never really considered the submission issue and how it effected my own life and marriage.

@8oxer – I haven’t mentioned my husband much at all, (confusing me with another poster maybe) but I did text him the link a few days ago. He is not all that interested in conversation about relationships so I don’t know if he will bother to read and post.

“I’m talking about him asking what my schedule was for the day, and then telling me that I was going to take child X with me on those errands while he took W, Y, and Z with him,”

Sounds like controlling. In today’s society women have defined that as domestic violence. No go.

“I’m talking about wanting my husband to say, “I am going to rip your clothes off when I get home. Put the kids in front of a long movie.” and then doing it, despite my groaning, and convincing me I really did want him to. ”

Uh… in today’s society, women have defined that as rape. No go.

“Too much beta-helpfulness can backfire, bc you are presenting as a wimp weaker than she is,”

Looks like you got the beta you legislated sweety. Enjoy!

As for Sheila, she’s an opportunistic, feminist shill. Did it really take an entire blog entry to say that?

Something about T strikes me as “topping from the bottom.” I feel like she does “trust his judgement” – because she has a metaphorical safeword and can stop at any time. If it is not that, then she simply refuses to see what anyone here is telling her. Much like Lydia (in the thread with Zippy Catholic) she seems to frame everything said here as “Well, it’s not true of my experience, so it must not be true anywhere.” Where Lydia extended this to “it is insulting to all women that you even entertain such a notion!” T takes the tack of, “Since this isn’t true of women, what are MEN doing wrong that they feel this way?”

If neither the man’s body nor the woman’s body belongs to themselves then why does that mean a woman can’t legitimately use that prerogative to say “in the morning please?”

There are two entirely separate issues here. The first is the meaning of us not owning our own bodies. There simply is no serious disagreement on what the Apostle Paul meant by this. In the context he is explaining why we don’t have the right to deprive each other of sex. That Sheila has confused you on this is exhibit A on how harmful she can be. This should be deeply troubling to you, and it should help everyone reading understand why what Sheila is teaching really is so dangerous.

The separate question is if a wife would ever be wrong to say “In the morning please?” At the very least this certainly can be a good faith request by a wife who takes submission and the instruction not to deny sex very seriously, and I think most Christian husbands would hear such a request with much sympathy. But this doesn’t mean the request amounts to veto power, because as we have seen any veto power instantly morphs into “what are you going to do about it?” rebellion. So it strikes me as a request a Christian wife might make in good faith, and something her husband should consider with love. But it isn’t the last word on the issue, and any interpretation which would nullify the concepts of “do not deprive” and headship & submission are in conflict with the most obvious parts of the Scripture.

Ok, two questions. 1. Why is her interpretation and, by extension, her analogy wrong? 2. Does the lack of veto power extend only to the wife or to the husband also? This isn’t just an academic question either. I can be a very high drive woman, and there have been times in the past when my husband wasn’t as high drive as he is currently.

The cheetos thing has unfortunately become a hang-up here. Her point is simply that given an atmosphere of abundance the occasional postponement or negative does not in fact equal deprivation.

It isn’t just the “cheetos thing”, as the post ended up being longer than I intended to cram in just a small portion of the astounding things Sheila writes. Note also that these aren’t off hand comments in a discussion thread or even in off topic blog posts; all of these examples come either from books she has written or her dedicated exegesis posts. It would be bad enough if these were non core writings of hers, but they aren’t. These are her showpiece writings about the most serious issues at the core of what she considers her area of expertise. This is a professional driver who can’t drive down the freeway without going into an unprovoked spin.

With that said, the “cheetos thing” really is that bad. We have an epidemic of Christian wives thinking of their husbands as children instead of head of household, and using denial of sex to enforce their perceived role as his parent. For her to not only butcher this relatively simple verse which is core to her area of expertise, but do so in exactly the way her audience is prone to fall down is unfathomable. How can you not see this?

@dalrock -” What it comes down to is since Sheila takes nearly every possible position on any given topic, the women who read her will take away what they were personally looking for. Women who want justification to withhold sex and dominate their husbands will find that, and they certainly won’t find anything resembling a serious rebuke. Women like you who want to find ways to follow their husband’s leadership will also find some of that and hopefully disregard the rest.”

I think that this is why she is popular. Her blog appeals to a lot of women by straddling the fence. Taking a firm stance on scripture would alienate a significant part of her audience. I won’t presume to know if this is intentional on her part or not. Anyway, I sent a friend who hasn’t had sex with her husband in 6 months a link to Shelia and this blog. Guess which place she’s reading and thinking about posting. But, if she sticks around there long enough some of the better advice may sway her.

Does the lack of veto power extend only to the wife or to the husband also?

I had a brief exchange with Mrs. Gregoire that leads me to believe that she sees veto power and decision-making about sexual activity as the wife’s domain exclusively. She wrote about a reader whose husband was displeased because he wanted some particular activity (she won’t say what it was, but it’s pretty clear that he was requesting oral sex) and the woman wanted something else instead. Sheila fully supported the woman’s view of herself as being the victim of an unfair request. She actual wrote that the husband was being selfish for stating his preference.

Dalrock may not have answered your second question, but I think he did answer the first….

Her interpretation is wrong because, as several commenters have posted, she uses a definition of “deprive” which is incorrect. What’s more, her analogy paints wives as mothers who must be discerning about proper behavior and when to disperse “goodies” and men as naughty children begging for treats when they OUGHT to consider themselves fully satiated. Since many women already (as Sheila herself admits in several posts) see their husbands as “animalistic” and “base” for their sexual urges, using SUCH an analogy only encourages wrong-headed thoughts about men.

Even more so, the analogy ASSUMES that husbands ARE getting the sexual attention they need, and that women can therefore feel free to deny them because they have enough already. Dalrock and others are upset because, in many marriages, this isn’t the case. This is the more harmful because the assumption is not clear, so women who aren’t providing “three healthy meals and a snack” worth of sex feel justified anyhow, because Sheila said they could withhold. Perhaps if this was made clear the analogy would be less damaging, but the point about juevenalizing the husband’s need for sex still stands.

I need to let this one go for the night at some point, but I re-read that comment and think you are probably on to something as far as Sheila’s perspective and if so she’s wrong. After all, how many women feel like they’re being selfish asking their man for oral sex? Would I much prefer intercourse over performing oral sex if I hadn’t seen my husband for days? Sure! If my husband told me he’d be thinking about my skills for days would I comply? Yep! There’s always more later :) I think the actual kicker for that wife was that, the way she told it, he essentially accused her of being selfish. The fight wasn’t about the fight. Rarely ever is….

@Natalie, as a follow on to SSM’s comment that Sheila seems to believe refusal is the domain of the wife alone, I will add that the verse in 1 Corinthians makes clear that NEITHER spouse is to deny the other, lest the unresolved temptation cause their spouse to sin. So, no one has veto power. You are not to refuse (deprive) your husband, and he is not to refuse you.

I would love to marry and yet, I currently feel no drive to do so. I take enough satisfaction from my life as it currently stands.

I’m serving God everyday and loving it.

If I get married, it would have to be on terms that I can handle. I’m set in my ways, theologically, so my wife would have to trust me leadership in making a difference in the world. Not to say that I wouldn’t strongly desire her input and sense of God’s calling. But at the end of the day, if I don’t have veto power over anything that I believe to be rooted in emotions, I’m not getting married.

This might make me sound like a pig, but regardless, there will be one more “attractive, strong woman” wondering where her prince is if I don’t find a woman willing to practice Biblical marriage.

I have stopped calling myself a feminist, although I do believe in equality, because the term has become so tainted politically.

This is the key point.

Surely we can’t allow ourselves to be dragged into debates about what kind of feminism (i.e., non-feminist feminisms) are acceptable to us because they seem fair or right or just. The issue is a deeper one, and the reality is that 95%+ of “Christian” women are feminist in at least the same sense as Gregoire is — and it only gets more feminist from there on out. Christian women abjure the term “Feminist” because, as Gregoire says, they disagree with *some* of the issues that feminists champion more broadly, such as abortion, and huge government size, anti-religion and so on. But if one leaves aside those issues, these women are 100% feminist, and the only reason they are not willing to use that word is political, as she outright admits here.

Of course, we will soon be lectured from the useless idiots in the right-wing male blogosphere about how this political analysis is Marxist, and we should just all man up.

1) register-her is about registering actual false rape accusers, child molesters, etc. That is a very different thing than these misandric Christians, who are law abiding citizens. Listing feminist Christians who do not follow the Bible but are otherwise law-abiding citizens is miles away from the type of creatures that register-her.com is meant for. I am surprised that someone does not see the distinction.

I should also point out than Glenn Stanton, Marc Driscoll, etc. are MEN. Yet another reason they are not suitable for register-HER.com.

2) register-her has not been updated in a long time. For example, Wanetta Gibson, the woman who falsely accused Brian Banks of rape, costing him an NFL career, is not featured there. The site seems to be all but defunct.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Not a website – my recommendation is that it is just a tab that Dalrock has at the top of his website, like the others he has.

He has already done the work to expose the true nature of Gregoire, Stanton, Driscoll, the Davissons, the film Fireproof, etc. All he has to do is index that into a category for quick reference.

It does not need to be as complicated as you are suggesting. And it is certainly a vastly different thing than register-her.com, which used to list actual criminals when it was an actively updated site.

Friends, it is the gospel message, that is why she said she is struggling with it, because she is struggling with the gospel, indeed, the gospel is epic, and very hard to deal with mentally. What a wife does to her husband, is identical, to what the husband does to Christ (when they believe the gospel), it is therefore terrifying, if a wife is not completely submitted, and has put her faith, totally, in the headship of her husband. Hell is conscious, eternal, akin to being in a furnace of fire. Death in the bible, never means cease to exist, it means jump in a furnace and feel it forever. The gospel is: repent and believe/faith that Jesus is fully God, and fully man, and came in the flesh, died for the sins of the world, and whosoever believeth in him, shall rise with him as well. The resurrection in his flesh, is therefore of critical importance. Btw, it is not substitution, it is “he became sin” in other words, he became you. There’s no works, repent means to have a completely supernaturally changed mind, a NEW mind, never, to do anything. When you have saving faith, it is that you put your faith in Christ, so much so, that you trust his words, decisions infinitely, even if that means Christ putting you in gaol to preach the gospel, like he did to Paul, Paul counted this “All joy to suffer for his master.” You take it gladly, knowing that he is right. God will act through the husband, as the LORD protects the weak; the husband is therefore to be trusted to an infinite extent, even an unbelieving one (remember God has infinite control, when you trust your husband, you trust God, and God is well pleased). A slave is someone who doesn’t know what his master has in store for him, but a servant is someone who has knowledge of what his master has in store for him (btw her soul becomes one with his, and that is why Peter says “hidden man of the heart” (Peter is referring to her, through submission to her husband, she gains the full ability of a man, which women patently don’t have.) Women and men being equal is straight from the pit of hell, Satan used that to ruin the world. In Satan’s attempt to become God, who is male, he became everything God is not; therefore Satan is female in character. Remember that the world=Satan=female=communism=coorporate lobbyist lawyer world. If they stumble at submitting to the husband, they stumble at the gospel, and will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. People, work out your salvation with fear and trembling, above all things, fear God.Few, there be, that find it.

The best part about keeping your emotions in check and only caring about what you think…women’s emotions can’t bring you down.

Believe me I went through a weekend with a lady with bad emotions and for the first time it didn’t faze me. I kept the lead the whole time and stayed happy because I was happy. It was one of the best weekends I ever had.

Because she turns the Scripture in question into something that’s a prerogative for her. The analogy is wrong because it assumes that sex isn’t a basic physical desire, but a treat for men that women hand out (that’s a chore to do too btw). She’s written things in the past that would indicate that she doesn’t relate to physical desires:

And if we give this message that men “need” sex, and women therefore must perform, it’s all too easy to start seeing sex as something distasteful, and men as animals.

But there’s one stubborn thing that is preventing the wholesale rejection of marriage, and that’s women’s stubborn need to see sex as something more than physical.

She has a “men lust women love” or “men physical women emotional” meme that comes out when she deals with sexual matters. Sex is just not mutual for her. Ultimately, she’s putting herself in place as the head of things – the child with the Cheetos thing bears this out.

2. Does the lack of veto power extend only to the wife or to the husband also? This isn’t just an academic question either. I can be a very high drive woman, and there have been times in the past when my husband wasn’t as high drive as he is currently.

No one has veto power. The spiritual concept behind the passage is in 1 Cor 7:5. There will be times when sex isn’t possible, but the idea behind it is to make sure that the temptation to draw sex outside of the marriage bed (porn, affairs, and so on) doesn’t come about. This is why one will often find me connecting willful sexual denial with porn use. The only exception mentioned is “except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer”. In other words, to put yourselves as a family before God in a truly sanctified manner. As I’ve come to see it from thinking on that verse (and a little past experience), you be very open and communicative, be selfless, and come to terms on what you both can do.

Dalrock,
You are doing a great service thanks for the work you do. If only pastors would exercise the authority they have and not become complicit to non biblical divorces. Most prefer “harmony” and numbers vs. a few faithful followers it is appalling and never was The Way.

One thing I notice about women who blog about gender issues, dating, marriage, sex, etc., whether (dubiously) in the manosphere or not is an overriding need for personal catharsis. Sheila, Aunt Giggles, SSM, and every Jezebeler write from a position of having this consuming need to reconcile some personal issues via affirmation from the body public.

Case in point, Sheila’s response to Kat’s personal insight about a desire for Alpha dominance:

Amazing comment! Thank you. I’m tempted to use this one as a separate post next week! I just may do that…

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.

Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

Sheila is so desperate for her phone-it-in husband to ‘just get it’ that her catharsis has become her advice blog. What her ‘ministry’ amounts to is a meta-shit test in the hopes that some pre-qualified Man will give her the push back that Kat describes and she enthusiastically concurs with. Kat, a woman, just gets it, but wont vocalize it to her husband because if she does it only confirms that he’s not man enough to ‘get it’ on his own – his natural beta mindset is to defer to her.

Solution? Create a social-scale venue where this message can be indirectly conveyed instead of openly declared (which destroys the organic genuineness of confirming it). It’s like having a drill sergeant who berates and infuriates you with demeaning measures until you show some spirit and say “enough!” and begin to push back. The Medium is the Message.https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/the-medium-is-the-message/

All these women’s blogs are is another Medium to deliver the same message.

Wouldn’t a smart way to change a woman be to change her herd? Change her herd to asians who are naturally skinny. Find some Indians or south american spanish who always have their hair long. Encourage her to read celebrity gossip so her herd becomes women who dress fashionably instead of frumpy. Pull the plug on the T.V, NO identitifying with that herd. Encourage books such as Pride and Prejudice and Anna Karenina which focus on marriage and on how evil adultery is rather than 50 shades of grey. Change her herd.

@ tater earl – “The best part about keeping your emotions in check and only caring about what you think…women’s emotions can’t bring you down.”

This is great. I think that a lot of women would be happier if they could manage their emotions like this. Most of the women that I see not getting along with their husbands, withholding sex, and having a hard time in marriage in general can’t do this. They aren’t driven by some deep need to control their husbands, so much as they are so emotionally out of control that they can’t separate how they feel from reality, and their emotions cripple them to the point that they cannot function in their relationships.

Submission sounds a lot easier than giving a husband control of your emotions, so that you can’t feel content when he didn’t do something, or wasn’t affectionate enough, or isn’t meeting your emotional needs. A lot of women are in a place where they cannot have sex without feeling a certain emotional connection (like my friend who hasn’t had sex for 6 months) and this keeps them from being able to fulfill their role as a wife. I’ve learned not to let how my husband is feeling or what he is or is not doing effect how I feel or what I do. It is incredibly freeing. There’s a downside, of course, but I wouldn’t go back, as being less emotional about my marriage has made it much better overall.

Anna Karenina is a novel which supports frivolous divorce. You will recall that Anna having married rich successful older man, Karenin, fails in her wifely duties and falls for handsome Alpha Cad Vronsky. Tolstoy white-knights for Anna throughout and then to end this tedious nonsense does the decent thing and has Anna throw herself under a train , though thereby doubtless inconveniencing the other passengers.

Pride and Prejudice is more divorce fantasy, although this time the heroine (like its author) has yet to marry, and where Miss Bennett, after much dithering and false assertions throws herself at dull though rich and handsome Mr D’Arcy. Had their been a sequel I can see her divorcing because he made her unhappy and seeking solace in the arms of Mr Wickham, except they did not do that in 19th century England.

Now, with regard to that literary masterpiece 50 Shades of Gray, Miss Steele who inexplicably is studying at a University somewhere near Seattle Washington, meets rather by chance handsome american macho billionaire Mr Gray and falls in love and remains happy and faithful – what’s not to like?

@ellie – thanks! One of the women that I told actually framed my turning away from this sin as me loving my husband less or some such nonsense, as if controlling ones own emotions instead of letting them sway you any way the wind blows is a sin. Wives are commanded to respect their husbands, not love them in the Bible anyway, so even if I did love him less, that wouldn’t be sinful. I will pass the peaceful wife link on thanks. It looks like it might be helpful to me as well.

Sarah’s Daughter and Stingray, thank you for the kind words. When I wrote the Feral Love post the other week I walked away after hitting publish and all I could think about is how much I wanted to show the incredible beauty of biblical marriage instead of having to fight against foolish notions of the culture. That so many Christians are ashamed of and even outright hostile to something so profoundly beautiful confounds and saddens me. Then both of you responded with comments which made it clear that you understood that largely unspoken aspect of the post, and it made my day. It reminded me that many (most?) of my readers see the very same thing, and I suspect that for many it is a large reason why they participate.

Friends, it is the gospel message, that is why she said she is struggling with it, because she is struggling with the gospel, indeed, the gospel is epic, and very hard to deal with mentally.

There is a difference between struggling with the Gospel and rebelling against it. Sheila’s anger and resentment at the verses in question is a huge tell, as is her eagerness to find a way, any way, to make them say the opposite of what she at other times acknowledges she really knows they say.

Yes Dalrock, you are precisely correct. I wrote that post at speed. I meant that for a believing woman who is struggling, I did not mean it for Sheila. It reads as if I’m referring to Sheila. My mistake. Best regards everyone.

If one believes in Egalitarian ideals you are a feminist plain and simple hence most MRA’s are feminists and MRM is the extension of the feminist movement further meant to enslave, degrade and vilify women.
The reality of the matter is that feminism has never been about women’s rights nor was it for the betterment of women as a whole. Feminism is an institution that has been created by elitist men. These men saw that it was in their interest to destabilize the society. Once chaos emergences after the society completely degenerates toward lawlessness and helplessness the big government will come in to save the day, in other words order will come out of chaos. (‘ordo ab chao’). To destabilize a strong society that has been built on values and traditions where the central facet was the family the elites used women as pawns in this case. Women are gullible and trustworthy creatures they have a goodness about them that makes them particularly friendly and forgiving to strangers. This humility and lack of self-interest in women has led women to trust these strange men. These elitist men have engineered a social revolution, which pervades every facet of our society today. Even if women do not believe they are feminists, they still believe that equality is essential. And this is what the elites sought they sought for feminism to become so mainstream that no longer did one need to define herself or himself as a feminist to be a feminist. The elites have succeeded in the break up of the family and the manipulation of women. Women have entered the workforce, abandoned their children and left good loving husbands. The same can be said about men who expect their wives to have jobs outside of the home, who shun the responsibility of the breadwinner. Men who leave their children divorce their wives for younger women and men who evade paying alimony for ex wives. As a result,many criminals come from single parent homes whether the single parent is a man or woman. Children need both parents in order to become good citizens who uphold highest values and ideals. However, once these values and ideals are imparted by the government indoctrination centers rather then by a loving mother. Then we can see a full-blown destruction and degradation of society as we see in today’s events and popular culture. Elites know that they will get more money by taxing both men and women who are in the workforce. They know that by indoctrinating the children early they will create good drone workers who will not question a tyrannical government.

Opus, I’ve never read Jane Austen (my wife practically swoons over her stories), but I did see the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth never considered D’Arcy boring. She thought him pretentious and arrogant. His proposal to her was classic game (something to the effect of” I don’t know why I would want to marry you because you are beneath my station and somewhat contemptible, but I do, so will you marry me?”). Her reaction was classic as well. Even though she was offended and disgusted (and said no), she couldn’t stop thinking about him. She later changed her mind about him because she saw how doting he was to others, and how kind and diligent (and manly) he was in intervening with l’affaire Lydia.

“Last Friday’s article on date rape by Murray Rothbard in these pages brought back a lot of college memories (not many of them good). By the end of his essay Rothbard cut to the real motive of the feminists: the campus date-rape campaigns of the early 1990s weren’t motivated by a genuine concern for the well-being of women. They were part of an ongoing attempt to delegitimize heterosexuality to young, impressionable women by demonizing men as rapists.

The only point I’d add is that the regulations the feminists were proposing applied only to men, not to the hordes of lecherous dikes teaching in “Wymyn’s Studies” departments whose most prized occupational perk is brazen sexual harassment of young women with complete impunity. ”

Well, I think we’ve come into some “agree to disagree” territory. Basically my husband and I don’t believe that depriving and refusing are _necessarily_ the same thing. From my blog: “Short answer, Allen and I don’t. It’s just too tricky in practice. For instance, how sick is too sick? As a woman I could technically be nearly comatose and still “participate.” This is where people would likely say to “use some common sense.” My response would be that, in which case, I’ll use my common sense to say that either party can, in the context of a generous and healthy marriage, small “r” refuse the other person with the understanding that the other person’s tacit consent is solicited and that feeling the need for a hard, capital “R” refusal signals a deep rift in the marriage.”

As for your other points about sex and emotions or sex vs emotions – that’s a whole blog post right there. Short version – call me crazy, but reading those posts for a second time I really think what she’s saying could jibe with MMSL style game theory. Men and women do by and large have different attraction triggers, and for women many of those triggers are hit by a proper alpha/beta balance. This means when she says something like, “our (female) sex drive is far more caught up in feeling safe, and feeling cherished, and feeling loved, than it is in pure visual stimuli” she’s saying “What ticks my boxes is having a strong (alpha) husband who provides for us (beta), and I love it when he takes time to connect with me (alpha/beta depending) and display his desire for me (alpha).”

Shorter version. I think she’s saying something real but that the dichotomy isn’t as large as she thinks.

Some of your readers have answered for you, so I’ll take that in good faith. Here’s my answer to the following quote:

With that said, the “cheetos thing” really is that bad. We have an epidemic of Christian wives thinking of their husbands as children instead of head of household, and using denial of sex to enforce their perceived role as his parent. For her to not only butcher this relatively simple verse which is core to her area of expertise, but do so in exactly the way her audience is prone to fall down is unfathomable. How can you not see this?

Ok, I’ll be honest and say that whole image of husband as child really never occurred to me in the analogy. I really just saw it as a straight “you know what generosity and fulfilling your duties looks like in this area, so don’t sweat the small stuff” kind of analogy. On the other hand, your breakdown of it is extremely compelling, and I can see where it reinforces some extremely virulent ideas – intentionally or not it was an irresponsible image to put out there as a marriage blogger.

“One thing I notice about women who blog about gender issues, dating, marriage, sex, etc., whether (dubiously) in the manosphere or not is an overriding need for personal catharsis.”

What I notice are:

1. stated good intentions to understand an issue or get people into healthy relationships.
2. the discomfort associated with conflict and disagreement.
3. the difficulty with hearing and accepting conflicting points of view.
4. taking too much personally.
5. the extreme need for consensus-building, and broad accord and agreement.

She was more submissive and in a better mood the next day. Relatively speaking though…considering she’s lived in a feminist la la land her whole life. But I think I will have a much better idea how she reacted to it in a few days.

“This is great. I think that a lot of women would be happier if they could manage their emotions like this.”

In a sense, yes. I think more women would be happier if they followed their husband’s happier moods and then tried to control themselves when he is in a bad mood. I’d say 80% of the time when a guy is in a bad mood it has NOTHING to do with his wife. He could of had a bad day at work, his sports team lost, he could just need some alone time. But if you add on to his bad mood by being in one yourself and taking it out on him then you will become part of his bad mood. One of the best phrases I heard about being in a bad mood is to just tell the woman she has nothing to do with it. That would hopefully ease her up a bit.

5. the extreme need for consensus-building, and broad accord and agreement.

Note what I wrote about about humans who were not capable of surviving in the jungle on their own (and hence need the tribe to survive), vs. those who are quite capable of surviving in the jungle on their own.

Gregoire says a few good things about marital relations and how wives ought to treat husbands. The problem is her purporting to use Scripture to support her opinions and her erroneous exegeses. The second problem is that she seems to believe she can’t present SCripture to mean what it plainly says; so she searches for more palatable “interpretations” to avoid offending her own sensibilities and those of her readers.

It seems that many women, even most Christian women, cannot simply accept that the words and phrases that comprise “Wives, submit to your husbands” and “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church” have their plain, ordinary, everyday meanings.

Her exegesis of “husband is the head of the wife” is wrong because it doesn’t take the second clause into account; and that second clause gives the first meaning. It makes no sense. Gregoire says the word “head” means “source”, as in “where the wife and family come from”. Christ is not the “source” of the church, meaning he is its headwaters and derives meaning from existence as the source of a creation. He is the head, meaning the leader and therefore made the rules for His family; and His church obeys and follows Him in return for His protections, provisions and blessings.

The second problem is her mental gyrations in distinguishing “deprive” from “refuse”. It’s really a distinction without a difference. Problem 1: Doesn’t take human nature into account. Husbands need sex more than wives, and will press for it more. Husbands don’t care about the nuances: deprivation and refusal are the same thing. If she doesn’t want to have sex with him sometimes when HE wants it; WHERE; and HOW, then she should not marry him.

Problem 2: Puts the wife in charge of sex. She is the ultimate decider of what sex is “good” for him, and when, and where. It is about relationship power.

For all Gregoire’s hand wringing about not wanting to see men as animals, she seems to believe men are somehow beneath women and need to be controlled and kept in check. In this view, male sexuality is bad and base and immoral and potentially injurious; while female sexuality is on a higher plane morally, spiritually and physically. Gregoire also seems to have an aversion to oral sex, specifically fellatio. She seems supportive of women who want to “make love” (meaning P in V sex). She seems to support women who don’t want to do things that indicate the man is “selfish” (i.e. he wants her to suck his c*ck).

Or, there are men who want their wives to perform fellatio but that reminds them of their “past” (translation: the reader seeking advice was a slut before she got married and did all kinds of unspeakable things with her superalpha ex, and she doesn’t want to do those things with hubby because it’s “immoral” and “unnatural” (which really means she’s just not all that into her husband).)

@ Natalie – I agree with your common sense approach to the issue of refusing sex in marriage.

@ deti – I’ve been to churches where they taught that anything other than p in v sex is morally wrong. I cannot remember which scriptures they used to support this, but they used some. I can imagine that a woman who believed in this interpretation of the Bible would not want to perform anything other than p in v sex. I think that she would be justified in this. It is the kind of thing that should be discussed before marriage if possible.

For instance, how sick is too sick? As a woman I could technically be nearly comatose and still “participate.” This is where people would likely say to “use some common sense.” My response would be that, in which case, I’ll use my common sense to say that either party can, in the context of a generous and healthy marriage, small “r” refuse the other person with the understanding that the other person’s tacit consent is solicited and that feeling the need for a hard, capital “R” refusal signals a deep rift in the marriage.”

There is really no need for small of big “r’s” here because refusal is refusal no matter what the size of the letter (though I do understand what you were getting at). A wife is called to not deny her husband and a husband is called to love his wife. Part of that loving of his wife would be learning the ability to know when she really does need to rest (be it sick, exhausted, medical, etc.) Refusal should not be part of the vocabulary and need not be. A simple explanation of the situation and asking is enough. “Husband, I would rather not tonight because of X, Y, Z. Would you mind if we did this tomorrow (or whenever is reasonable to the situation)?” This is not a refusal.

Also, it calls into account something I think women cannot gauge very well. How insistent is his need at that time? Is it possible that his need could be greater than your need to sleep because of a small cold? Or even a large cold, or whatever? Of course, this will be different to each occasion this would come up, but it’s not just about the reason the wife may not want to have sex. It has a lot to do with what he needs at that moment as well.

@ stingray – Isn’t asking just a refusal with nicer phrasing? I mean if the wife says “I am not feeling well and need to sleep. Maybe we could do this later?” Is the husband really going to say ” it sucks that you have the flu but I am doing you anyway. ” Even if she’s just asking because she is not in the mood, most men are not going to be all “nope, spread ’em.” It’s a distinction without a difference. It makes the wife feel better about turning down sex, and depending on how often it happens it might make the husband feel better about being turned down but she is still turning it down.

I don’t think so, but maybe the men here could give a better answer than I can. Asking implies a yes or no response. If she asked she should be prepared to have sex even if she doesn’t feel well. And you’re right. Most men are not going to say we are having sex anyway, but it gives the courtesy of putting the ball in his court anyway.

Asking should not be about actually turning down sex, but actually asking in the spirit of complying with his response.

And should always be taken that way, no matter what suspicions or even certainties one may have about the sincerity of the question. When you always respond to peoples’ questions as though they are sincere they learn over time not to shine you on; and it makes your own life much more pleasant and simple.

Attempting to show the beauty of what marriage has the potential to be is a large part of why I participate. It’s important to get this message out as too many people have never seen a marriage like this before (and even some who have seen it misconstrue what is actually happening), but the difficulty in explaining it is astounding. Preconceived ideas always seem to stand in the way and too many people are comfortable with those very barriers.

@T – have to look at the greater context of the relationship over time around the occasion of refusal. if she offers a rain check, does she consistently fulfill the promise implied? If yes, then it’s usually all good as long as the rain check request isn’t a frequent occurrence. If no, then she is likely in rebellion and there is a problem. If the no followup happens often enough, then the frustrated husband may just say “I’m doing it anyway” causing deeper conflict or more likely sulk. And in that sulking, he could be open and vulnerable to temptation outside the marriage.

The entire context of not depriving each other is based on the concept that each partner needs help from the other to remove themselves from sexual temptation outside of the marriage (porn, adultery, over the top flirting, etc.). In other words, you need to do your part to help your husband remove himself from outside temptation (and emphatically yes this goes for your husband as well: how he does that is a separate discussion outside the scope of this post).

“maybe the men here could give a better answer than I can. Asking implies a yes or no response.”

There is a lot wrapped up in this. Husbands and wives really have to know each other well and simply work it out between them. The issues for men are:

1. It is not a deprivation or refusal for a wife to decline sex when she is exhausted, overtired, ill, menstruating, or otherwise distracted — as long as that truly is what’s going on.

2. A husband DOES NOT want to have sex with a wife who clearly doesn’t want to have sex and is not enjoying the sex. There is no greater turnoff for a normal man than to see his wife doesn’t want to have sex with him and is clearly just going through the motions. Most men respond to a woman who isn’t into sex with him by simply withdrawing into work, porn, drugs or affairs, or getting a divorce.

3. Men need to know and understand their wives’ biologies — when their menstrual cycles are, what they like and don’t like sexually, etc.

If a wife is unenthusiastic about sex with her husband, something in the marriage is seriously wrong and both of them need to look at it.

Actually a person doesn’t even have ask to postpone or outright refuse to be refusing sex. Often it’s done with body language and other actions. Like if you know that your spouse will want sex and that you don’t, so you come to bed with your frumpiest pjs turn your back and generally give off the “don’t touch me” vibe. Or if you just wait until he falls asleep before you come to bed to avoid sex. If you make no effort to respond to foreplay or affection and wait for him to get the hint and stop. Often a man won’t even intiate under these circumstances, but his wife has still refused sex. You may not have violated the letter of the scripture, but you’ve surely violated the spirit.

This is why I think that the common sense approach makes much more sense in application than the “he has the right to force you and you must never say no,” business that I read in some of the comments. Because I doubt that the scripture means for wives to say yes to sex even when they feel crappy and for husbands to force them if they don’t. In general you should be open to sex with your spouse and make an attempt to enjoy that sex even if the timing or circumstances aren’t what you would prefer. Basically your spouse should be able to approach you most of the time knowing that his affection and sexual attention will be welcomed and not rejected. In this kind of marriage most husbands wouldn’t have a problem with the occasional no for whatever reason.

@stingray – I think that a when a wife asks if they can postpone sex she is doing so with the expectation that he will say yes. Unless she married a mentally unhealthy man he isn’t going to want sex with someone who would rather not be bothered. Basically you know when you ask that he’s going to agree to no sex even though he wants sex. It’s pretty much the same as refusing outright. I’m fine with agreeing to disagree though.

I’ve just been looking through your yahoo answers profile (and your incredible 76% best answers from 58 answers) and I can only salute your sterling work. That’s an incredible amount of direct 1-to-1 good work you are doing. While I am an atheist I do believe biblical marriage is the best model for civilised society and personal happiness so I commend you on promoting it.

T,
I don’t know if Stingray has experienced this but considering what I’ve learned about her marriage, it is probable. If I ask RLB if we can hold off until ___, and he is in need, what usually ends up happening is something I’ve been unable to resist, even if I’m sick, exhausted, whatever. He’ll do something very provocative, “you know you want to” in an assumptive flirty voice, etc. He is persuasive in a way only he knows how to be with me. It sounds as though you’re still talking about hypothetical situations that go on in marriages that are not aligned right. Really, knowing he’s in need of me is plenty of inspiration.
Also, if he agrees to wait, he usually makes sure I agree to a very “him oriented” rain check. It’s quite fun…when the marriage is right.

It’s important in this discussion that the wife pick her husband correctly. Just as it’s been emphasized in the manosphere blogs that address marriage that the men need to do a better job vetting their prospective fiances before marrying them. They need to get to know each other well, allow for each other’s weaknesses and foibles, then the good sex life can be interrupted by temporary illness or exhaustion without disrupting the marriage.

Stingray and deti catches most of what I would say in response to you. The answer to your question in light of the Scripture is putting the decision in the hands of the person involved, and like I said communication and negotiation. To lean on my pre-Christ life some, when the term “having sex” came up, it meant any number of things which can be done even when sick with the flu. There’s obvious things that a spouse knows and can tell which by their love/respect will hold off of, but there is willful sexual denial in there too. Most men will honor their wives in this way, but remember folks like Sheila Gregoire like to paint extremes as normal and common for those that follow Scriptures she rebels against to the letter (like your comatose example, that’s obviously “can’t” in most men’s vocabularies). In other words, the person isn’t open with providing what is the other spouse’s right. Like mentioned, “having sex” can mean a number of different things, and the couple really should negotiate and compromise. Willful sexual denial always involves a question of will, not a question of ability. Willful sexual denial is a rejection of the person.

For example, if a woman is menstruating, instead of refusing access to her body she can point out that she is (and given the dynamics of the marriage, both should know what it means), and then the couple can move onto different avenues. In fact, the mood may be there for something that doesn’t involve PiV and it wouldn’t ever be an issue.

Now women don’t come out and directly refuse, they wrap it in excuses that men (if wise) can see through quickly just by comparing her refusal to his going to provide the family or the like. If a woman says “I’m tired”, he thinks “well I’m tired from work too but I still had to do x, y, and z when I got home and I couldn’t bow out of that for being tired, could I?”, or “I have a headache” he thinks “well, my back hurt and I still had to work through it and go out and shovel the drive off”, or “I don’t feel it”, he can think “well I didn’t feel like dragging my ass out of bed at 6 in the morning to go to work to provide for you and the children but I still did” (what would a wife say if THAT came out?). What is missed by most women in this society is that Scripturally-speaking, love isn’t about feelings or urges. It’s about action and commitment. Jesus shows us this. His love was shown that while we were still enemies He went on the cross for our sins. By Scripture, it’s pretty obvious that He didn’t feel like doing it, but He did it anyway. He was the only one able to do it, so out of love He did it. Not because He felt like it or was in love with anyone.

I am really not going to discuss my sex life on this blog, but if I can be convinced then I know that ahead of time and don’t ask to hold off. I ask to be convinced or let my body language ask for me. I expect my, ” I don’t feel well and need to postpone,” to be taken seriously because I don’t refuse or hint at refusal unless I really need a pass on sex that night.

@ Sarah’s daughter – Really? There is nothing that you expect from your husband? Not love, not kindness, not that he will want dinner at about the same time every evening, that he will honor his marriage vows, that he will come home at night? Not one expectation? My husband is bit predictable so I can expect compassion and understanding from him pretty consistently. Would be shocked if it didn’t happen.

@T
You’re being obtuse. You stated, “I expect my…to be taken seriously”

You are also the commenter who was asking what biblical submission looks like. I am not confused.

I’ll indulge…no, no, no, no, no, no. I expect nothing. I cherish his love, kindness, honor of his marriage vows and that he comes home at night. I obey his desire to have dinner when he wants it.

Regarding our marriage vows: my husband is a sinner, just as I am. When he sins my only concern is his relationship with God. His sin of the flesh is not about me, it is due to succumbing to temptation. My submission to him is not about him, it’s about God. I submit, obey, forgive, give sex freely to, etc. him because of God’s commands. It has nothing to do with him, his behavior, his good works, his obedience to God…nothing. I take seriously the admonition to not let his foot stumble. He married me to have sex with me so that gratifying his sexual need is right with God. I honor that.

Put it altogether and deprive does not mean what “Sheila” thinks it means. It’s a depriving based on fraudulent and deceptive grounds.

So….by that standard, “wrong time of the month” or “i feel sick”, or “I just had a baby, let’s wait six weeks”, ARE acceptable grounds for sexual postponement because it’s not a fraudulent, deceptive deprivation. If she’s telling the truth, a man who would demand sex in those situations is a monster.

Being “too tired” night after night. week after week…. and sitting up watching TV while supposedly “too tired” for sex…. IS fraudulent, deceptive depriviation. Sex should be the main evening entertainment and the husband should NOT have to unblock any cable channels to get it!

@ Sarah’s daughter – I don’t believe that I accused you of being confused. I did ask what biblical submission looks like because I’ve not really seen it. Was there some point to bringing that up now?

My husband leads my household, and our relationship works well, but I’m not sure if our relationship would count as one where there is Biblical submission so I am careful not to claim that it is because I wouldn’t want to mislead others or set a bad example about anything that important When I hear submission described in practice it is often in a way that gives lip service to scripture. For example claiming to follow the verses about never refusing sex while refusing in a round about way and some of the nonsense that has been pointed out on Shelia Gregory’s blog.

Yours and every other wife, and it is interesting to note that hardly any Jane Austen had been filmed before 1970 but thereafter almost every year, something. It is hard not to note that 1970 saw the beginning of the rise of Feminsim, and to draw conclusions therefrom.

I never read the book (hence my ignorance) or saw the film, – though I once worked in her late Uncle’s house, and very nice it is too – but I do know that the classic scene in the film where D’Arcy emerges naked from the pond, is inexplicably missing form the original – pure Pinewood, as we would say.

Leaving aside the size of the hamster of this woman, the way she distorts Scripture to fit her feminist ideology, there is something that I don’t understand about her and about American women in general.

It’s the conception of sex as a chore, as an action that they prefer to avoid or make as infrequent as possible. Something similar to washing dishes.

I mean: we are talking about women (sexual beings), not about asexual amoebas. Every human being has a sex drive: it has been programmed this way by nature. Every human being sees sex as pleasurable. Every human being needs sex, the way he needs food. Or so I thought.

As I have said once and again, I am an European man living in Latin America. Here, women LOVE sex. I mean: they can’t get enough of it. It’s me who usually says: “No, baby, today I am tired” or “Let’s make sex but also go to the movies”. Women don’t punish men with withdrawal of sex because, in words of a Latin female friend of mine who lives in the States, “I am not punishing with a punishment that also punishes me”.

What is the problem with American women? Why do they go against their biological wiring? It is that they marry betas who they are not attracted to? It is that centuries of Puritanism have trained them to consider sex as “dirty”? Can somebody explain it to a foreigner such as me? Thanks in advance.

“You’re going to fall in love in a few years with a man you will think is perfect. Take a step back. Does he let you be yourself? Does he ask you about you? Relationships can’t be based on hero worship. Run away fast. You’ll save yourself a lot of heartache.
And by the way, while you’re running away from your boyfriend, take another look at your best friend. Sometimes best friends really do make the best husbands!”http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2008/07/letter-to-me/

Expectation is entitlement, and any love in an environment of entitlement lacks grace, and when something lacks grace it becomes an obligation, and if it is an obligation it ceases to be love at all.

@innobody – you and me both. I was absolutely shocked when I discovered that there can be women like Sheila Gregoire who seem to have no urge toward sex whatsoever. I began to understand how it could happen, but really don’t relate to it. As you describe it, you are very blessed to be in a place where there is an understanding of what a gift sex is to both parties involved.

Yes, that certainly does happen. During those times when it’s just not going to though and need is strong, we do compromise. I think it was deti who mentioned this above. I ranked my back a few days ago and there are certain things that would be quite painful right now. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do other things to satisfy him. I’m not sure how turned on I could get with the pain and he knows that, but he also knows that if he wanted to, one way or another he would be taken care of.

@jsr – Sheila states that her husband is a pediatrician in several posts. The job definitely says alpha, but I’ve often wondered what happened there. Probably the typical scenario Dalrock describes of him getting beat into a simpering and supplicating beta by his wife, then her losing attraction in that way and then thinking of it as a normal thing? Hard to know.

I suspect much of the what is “wrong with American women” is mostly cultural and cosmetic. Cultural mores have relaxed considerably but people, especially women, want to put on the appearance of respectability and morality through appearing to be sexually continent and chaste. This is confusing and screwing up a lot of women.

I think some of it also has to do with American women’s diets, which is making most of them fatter, more out of shape, and more dissatisfied with their bodies’ appearance.

A third item is that many women are having sex either on the carousel long or short term; which I think tends to decrease a woman’s enjoyment of sex. They ruin themselves for average men and thus marry unattractive betas if they marry at all.

My comment comes in regards to the comment from Edita, but more so to the main issue we all have here-FEMINISM. And I suppose this is aimed more to the truly faithful here in the manosphere. It doesn’t matter if we understand how exactly feminism came about. The root of it is Satan and his attempt to take down as many of us with him, before Christ comes back, sets up his Kingdom, and casts him into the pits of eternal torment. It appears obvious that one of his targets and strategies of this war of his, is the foundation of all civilization, THE FAMILY. Now my main point, and I would love to see one of the many great bloggers here, do a post on this someday, is this. The way we fight this spiritual warfare is: #1. Strive to get as many as possible to take the red pill, so they can see the truth. #2. Use of game is absolutely a necessity. And #3. We need to fight back in this spiritual warfare by praying against the spirit of feminism, and the spirit of Jezebel. It’s necessary and biblical. Ephesians 6:12. Success will be as arduous as 1&2, but If we could gather a huge band of prayer warriors, we can start making some serious damage to Satans goal.

@ballista74 “Expectation is entitlement, and any love in an environment of entitlement lacks grace, and when something lacks grace it becomes an obligation, and if it is an obligation it ceases to be love at all.”

Interesting perspective. I think that there is obligation in love. It isn’t just an emotion it’s an action and there are certain things that you should do, and things that you should not do in a loving relationship. A lot of these posts have been about how husbands and wives are obligated to provide sex to one another so I’m assuming that I’m not alone in thinking that there is an expectation and entitlement in that area at least.

What is the problem with American women? Why do they go against their biological wiring? It is that they marry betas who they are not attracted to? It is that centuries of Puritanism have trained them to consider sex as “dirty”? Can somebody explain it to a foreigner such as me? Thanks in advance.

The largest reason is that women are married to men they are not attracted to, because most women can’t marry men they are attracted to the most. The second reason you mention is relevant for a certain subset of Christian women in the US, but not the broader public. I’d expect that given what Gregoire writes, the issues she’s had relate to the first problem, because she married her friend and not the guys she found most attractive.

Sheila states that her husband is a pediatrician in several posts. The job definitely says alpha, but I’ve often wondered what happened there. Probably the typical scenario Dalrock describes of him getting beat into a simpering and supplicating beta by his wife, then her losing attraction in that way and then thinking of it as a normal thing? Hard to know.

The typical pediatrician is not really an alpha. Some of them may be, but that sector of medicine is dominated by female docs and is largely feminized. I wouldn’t be very surprised if the husband here is also more of a feminized beta by nature since that’s what he chose as a speciality — and that also matches what we see of his persona as well. The specialties that tend to attract the really driven alphas are things like surgeon, anaesthesiologist, etc.

I recall about ten years back congratulating a certain woman on her forthcoming nuptials to one of our local Surgeons – pretty distinguished too. ‘Yes’, she said as she looked at me,’ but not as handsome as you Opus’ – I didn’t fancy her, god help me, but he had the money, and the villa abroad etc etc.

Edita TWRA – “If one believes in Egalitarian ideals you are a feminist plain and simple hence most MRA’s are feminists and MRM is the extension of the feminist movement further meant to enslave, degrade and vilify women.”

A number of people have made such pronouncements. Yet, not one has ever bothered to present a decent rational and coherent argument as to why such would necessarily be the case.

As with most of these drive-by shaming attempts, you’ve simply declared all men who advocate for equal legal protections for men (the real “core” of what the Men’s Right’s Movement has always sought to address) with somehow being “egalitarian”, and thus, in your mind, equal to feminists.

But, in your very next paragraph you admit that you fully understand that “feminism” was never about women seeking an egalitarian outcome. You’ve effectively shredded your own comparison of MRA’s to feminists.

The rest of your post seems to be more about (typically) Marxist ideas, and the tie-in to feminism. But, I see no valid refutation of The MRM, the Manosphere, nor any of the prominent memes expressed between the two anywhere therein.

I do hope that you didn’t type that all out, but simply cut it from elsewhere to paste into your post. Otherwise, you’ve wasted a good bit of time and effort of a failed effort to try to shame.

I’d venture that you have little to no understanding of what the so-called Manosphere is all about. But your view is a typically tainted one, as you are operating from entirely within what would best be described as the Gynosphere, which is a view that everything revolves around the interests of women, first and foremost. In that regard, Traditionalist women are little different that self-described feminists – it’s all about what women want. You may say you want things that are different from what feminists advocate for, yet, in the end, you positions all come down to what will work out best for women (in your opinion). Men are just “tools” to provide for whatever it is women want.

The Manosphere, which would better be termed the Androsphere, is, by-n-large, and effort to allow men to develop a sense of themselves independent of what women want/demand of them. Of course, this is what really scares women – not that men might advocate for equality, but rather that men would consider the issue for themselves without the direction and approval of woman.

Any given man may seek to be a better (Biblical) husband to a worthy wife, he may chose to not marry (often for the lack of quality women) and simply seek to “play the field”, or he may chose to eschew women all together. He may chose that his wife be a Stay-at-home, or he may put more value of her working to contribute to the household. The point is not about forcing men into any particular mold, but rather about his ability to consider his options with the best information made available to him. Then he can chose the path he prefers.

This, of course, runs counter to both the feminist view of a man’s place in the world, and the so-called traditionalist women’s intentions of what a man is supposed to be doing to do make her happy and provide for her to live the life she wishes. Thus, another way to look at it, is that men/MRA’s in the MRM/Manosphere are the only true anti-feminist still out there. The rest of you all have been swallowed up in either Churchian or Traditionalist gynocentrism, neither of which can stand as a meaningful counter to feminism as they fully share feminisms gynocentric core, which supposes everything to be viewed in light of what benefits women.

The Manosphere is the real counter to your (unspoken) alliance with the self-avowed feminist, making the point that a man’s desires, needs, and, yes, rights, are every bit as important to individual men as are the same to individual women. Perhaps egalitarian in nature, but anti-feminist through-and-through.

Is a lack of sex in marriage really all that common? I rarely hear about that kind of thing outside of certain Internet blogs. I figured that the men who are having problems are vocal about it online and the men who are getting plenty at home don’t bother to talk about it, making it seem more common than it actually is.

For every man talking about his marital problems online, there are probably 10 to 15 suffering in slience, mostly because they have no one to talk to or because they don’t know any other way to live.

The lack of discussion about it has to do mostly with the way men and women discuss sex.

A man will never, ever talk about his sex life, good or bad, to any woman he knows other than a doctor or a therapist. It simply is not done, mostly because to discuss sex life problems openly is to admit crippling weakness.

The typical pediatrician is not really an alpha. Some of them may be, but that sector of medicine is dominated by female docs and is largely feminized.

100% agree. In fact, there seems to be a recurring misconception that a doctor is ‘alpha’.

For the most part, they are not. They studied STEM which, sadly, creates personality traits that women are not attractive to. The divorce rate for doctors is also surprisingly high relative to other Upper-Middle-Class people.

Now, professions that do create personality traits that are attractive to women are is the man is a high-profile salesman, or a lawyer who actually argues in courts. These professions teach a man to behave in ways that Game also teaches.

But a doctor is not alpha simply by being a doctor. Not in the least. In fact, the doctor is perhaps the ideal embodiment of a beta-provider. A good bedside manner often is counterproductive to gina-tingles.

Now a nurse or female doctor is often a good type of woman for a man to marry. For the same reasons women are attracted to male lawyers, but female lawyers are usually in possession of traits that are very unattractive to men.

Those who don’t understand why this is, are still immersed in solipism.

Is a lack of sex in marriage really all that common? I rarely hear about that kind of thing outside of certain Internet blogs. I figured that the men who are having problems are vocal about it online and the men who are getting plenty at home don’t bother to talk about it, making it seem more common than it actually is.

It’s quite common, but it isn’t often talked about in public because it’s quite embarrassing for most people — men and women alike — although women are more likely to share this with close friends in extremis than men are if they are a woman who values sex — which is quite a few women today, but surprisingly there are many who don’t value it very much, at least once they are married. It’s not that these women don’t like sex, it’s that they really aren’t into their husbands that much, especially after a few/several years of marriage. It’s also an issue with the men, too — not that the men are frigid or don’t want sex, but they are bored of sex with their wives (Deti’s post touches on this) or likewise become unattracted to their wives after several years and life changes and so on. In reality the percentage of married couples who have really active sex lives 10+ years in is not very high, but you don’t hear about it too much other than through anonymous surveys, which are still lied on (people lie more about sex than anything else in life).

Now that isn’t automatically a terrible thing. It very much depends on the couple as to how much sex they want/need to have, and if they are satisfied with it and it’s enough to maintain the bond, even a relative (to other couples) infrequent sex life is fine if the marriage is otherwise fine. I think on the internet there is a much higher emphasis on sex in marriages than there is in actual marriages, provided there is some sex happening, and both spouses are satisfied with the level and quality — unfortunately given the super-high to extremely high value our current culture places on sexual satisfaction, the number of couples who will be satisfied with this situation is also not great (much lower than it ever was historically, where people were almost certainly in the same place, but sucked it up), which leads to more divorces and affairs and unhappy couples who remain married but dissatisfied. If you’re with the cultural Zeitgeist in terms of the hyper-importance of sex to your life and marital satisfaction, then you need to have a very good marital sex life, and that isn’t really all that common. There’s the rub.

I agree with that. I think that there are more natural asshole Game alphas among surgeons and gas-passers, however, in my own personal experience with them, than with other specialities like peds or GP/internist and so on — the latter are like corporate lawyers, who do only middling well with women in general. Courtroom litigators generally have decent natural game (it’s the persona that is attracted to this), as you describe, and do better with women than lawyers who are negotiators and drafters.

There is a tradition used for newlyweds. One gets a bag of jelly beans and a jar. For the first year after marriage, every time you have sex, put a jelly bean in the jar. After the first year, mark the occasion by removing (and eating) a jelly bean from the jar. According to the tradition, you will never finish the jar of jelly beans.

Yes. It’s just not talked about that much. And if it is, it’s usually shamed in places that cater to feminist like Sheila Gregoire’s site when it comes up. But you hear certain jokes occasionally with the punchline that says the biggest killer of a women’s libido is her own wedding cake or some variation. You wouldn’t hear the men who tell this or the men hearing it admit it, but there’s a unspoken understanding of the kernel of truth in such things from most all involved.

This whole thread of posts by van Rooinek are classic in this regard. Usually Gregoire moderates out any disagreement of her position in the comments, so it’s even doubly remarkable that these posts stayed.

You hear “why buy the cow when the milk is free” all the time when it comes to women and pre-marital sex, but usually when men do buy the cow, it doesn’t produce the milk. Usually after a couple of years and a kid or two, it’s “sorry hubby, sex show is closed, and oh btw, you can’t go elsewhere to find satisfaction.” Couple that with the divorce meat-grinder, and ultimately men are made to burn in obedience to their marriage vows.

The male bashing continues in this Volkswagen Passat commercial, in which a man teaches his son to throw a ball like a girl:

You didn’t understand the ad. The ad actually mocks the father for teaching the son something ‘he will not be grateful for’ as opposed to the Passat, which he WILL be grateful for.

The ad is right. A man throwing like a girl is embarrassing.

Too many in the Androsphere are getting tripped up by double negatives, and interpret the opposite of what is being said. Paul Elam himself is a huge example of this (he thinks one is disagreeing with him when one is agreeing with him, and gets mad if someone praises him because the praise was not delivered in a way he understood).

Thoroughly off-topic, but slwerner’s post containing both terms “manosphere” and “androsphere” reminded me that I spotted yesterday what could be my favorite term for this community: the MANdrosphere.

I neither remember what blog on which I saw this, nor do I know if its use was intentional (I’ll assume so, since I like it)–I’ll post the link if I can find it in the browser history. The spelling was actually “MAndrosphere”, so it was difficult to discern intent.

You hear “why buy the cow when the milk is free” all the time when it comes to women and pre-marital sex, but usually when men do buy the cow, it doesn’t produce the milk. Usually after a couple of years and a kid or two, it’s “sorry hubby, sex show is closed, and oh btw, you can’t go elsewhere to find satisfaction.” Couple that with the divorce meat-grinder, and ultimately men are made to burn in obedience to their marriage vows.

It’s not uncommon, but quite a few guys (and their wives) just kind of lump it in this situation — which is obviously not ideal, but is better than getting divorced, and I’m fairly certain was just as common under the old regime of marriage where the difference was that women would have sex (no marital rape), but would close their eyes and think of England, and for most guys that kind of sex just isn’t appealing on a regular basis. The issue is that women can’t marry the guys they are attracted to the most sexually. They can maintain attraction to the guy they *can* get to commit for a while, but not for the longer term. I’m fairly certain this was also a problem for women under the old regime (and is a reason why so many women chafed under their marriages — they were no longer attracted to husband and wanted out), because it’s related to their sexuality in general, and the fact that not all men can be dominant socially in the way a woman would prefer. Clearly this has gotten worse since industrialization and urbanization increased the “comp pool” from the perspective of women, and now that process has continued to an extreme with Facebook and dating sites and the like, but the core of the problem is always the same — women are generally attracted to men they have a hard time getting commitment from, and if they are one of the many women (most women, really, all told) who are forced to compromise in mate selecting, this will eventually impact libido.

To some extent men can do something about this a la Athol, but to some extent it really does depend on how into you she was when she married you. That’s why Dalrock’s advice on that point is critical — the woman needs to be head over heels for you in terms of *desire* when she is considering marrying you and when she does. If that’s the starting point, you have a much better chance of being able to maintain that desire in various ways that are now discussed on the internet. But if she isn’t there, you’re looking at trouble down the road — not necessarily divorce (I know many UMC marrieds who are mediocre happiness but this is good enough for them), but in terms of what you want for your life. Of course, where I disagree with Dalrock and Athol to some extent is that I don’t think that many men are going to fall into the “head over heels” category in terms of generating that in women pre-and-at marriage in today’s culture of huge female options in terms of attention — and it’s not uncommon for women to openly report that they are not attracted to most men (even when they are single) and that they may have been head-over-heels once, or maybe never were since they had a 15 year old crush –> this isn’t that common, but it’s what you want/need when selecting a wife candidate if you want to have a top shelf marriage. Of course, as I have also said a few times in this thread, if you are satisfied with an “okay” or “good enough for me” marriage, then this is less of an issue provided you have picked someone with high FTO and you also don’t have game-breaking flaws. It depends on what you want, and what you can live with for your life.

“…some prefer the Manosphere, others, Androsphere. I don’t particularly care who calls it what, so I’ll just apply the Hegelian Dialect and go with the Synthesis, Teh MAndrosphere TM from here on out.”

There is a tradition used for newlyweds. One gets a bag of jelly beans and a jar. For the first year after marriage, every time you have sex, put a jelly bean in the jar. After the first year, mark the occasion by removing (and eating) a jelly bean from the jar. According to the tradition, you will never finish the jar of jelly beans.
“We gonna need a bigger jar.”
“And more jellybeans.”

@Natalie on January 6, 2013 at 6:06 pm:Men and women do by and large have different attraction triggers, and for women many of those triggers are hit by a proper alpha/beta balance.
That’s not the only issue, though it is important. Not only do men and women have different attraction triggers, but they also have different arousal triggers: women like touch whereas for men, sight is sufficient — though touch is nice, too.
It also complicates things that women are *constantly* multitasking — what are my plans for tomorrow, oh, I have to drive Timmy to baseball practice after school, and Amy has to pick out presents for her best friend’s birthday — such a backdrop makes it harder for women to pay proper attention to foreplay, or to get as aroused as quickly. Not to mention a single call of ‘Mommmmmm!’ from across the house can effectively quench the mood for the evening…if she lets it (recall the steamy younger days, when both of you would make out and kiss and maul, not only despite the fear of someone walking into your secluded section of the college library, but the risk of discovery added an additional tang?)
OK, with kids, it’s not quite the same; but it goes to illustrate a woman can focus on sex despite distractions, should she wish to. And in the same vein, I’ve heard it stated that a man’s sex drive is like a quick-start lawn mower, one pull and you’re going — but a woman’s is like a diesel. Harder to start, but once she’s warmed up, you can go for hours.
Two things that help are allowing sufficient “us” time without interruptions, and early enough in the evening that she has energy left; and allowing for a warmup. Also interesting (and useful) is that even if a wife “says” she is not interested, if she consents to begin intercourse (and he is at *all* skillful, after a few minutes she is often surprised to find that she “really was” interested all along after all. Needless to say, the “Schlessinger Limit” (five-to-seven minutes for intercourse) usually is far too short a time to warm the diesel properly. But I have seldom if ever run across a man who ever complained that sex took too MUCH time. :-)
Two or three other 20,000-foot-level comments.
1) Women often marry men for a number of different reasons: bounceback from a breakup, status among other women, baby rabies, lust, for a provider, “love”, fear of spinsterhood, etc. ; but men almost ALWAYS marry women in order to screw their brains out, regardless of any other motives. IF the woman has married a man with sex low on her reasons list, or, worse, if she used sex mainly to entice him, or worse, has sexually imprinted upon a former lover other than her husband, then the marriage has structural issues due to her dishonesty. (If this offends you, take it up with St. Paul: see for example 1 Cor. 7:9 “…it is better to marry than to burn” meaning that marriage is a legitimate — the legitimate — outlet for sex; and also keep in mind, that if your husband is constantly pressing you for sex, then he is constantly pressing *you* — and not seeking it elsewhere, which a woman would probably find even *more* offensive; the best analogy to what a woman abstaining does to her husband, would be to picture how it would affect you if your husband spent all his *time* talking to a female friend, giving her all the time and commitment and emotional energy which you feel rightly belong to you. It’s not perfect, since relationships between men and women usually don’t stay asexual for long, but your emotions would pretty well match those of an involuntarily celibate husband.)
2) I remember reading somewhere a discussion between two women discussing a beta orbiter which one of the women couldn’t seem to shake, and the second woman was asking the first, “But hasn’t he noticed that you’re not f*cking him?” — meaning, a woman WILL have sex with a man she is attracted to; so if the husband has done something to be less tingle-worthy long term (being a supplicating beta, letting her order him around), the exact approach will depend sensitively on the specific circumstances of their relationship: a good dose of Athol Kay’s male action plan is called for: he should reclaim his masculinity by *becoming* masculine, not by “telling her” how he is *going to become* masculine in the future.

– The ones in strictly “service” type work, your GPs and the like, are effectively in a highly paid Beta role. They get a specific level of respect for their work, but it’s not dominant. (The pay, however, can be)

– The ones in “control” type work, surgeons of most stripes/ER doctors, require a level of Leadership Alpha to do their job. For most, it’ll work through their personalities over time, but it doesn’t make them Personality Alphas by assurance. Think more higher ranked Military Officer. (Some are still pretty cowed by their wives… in divorce court) Though they’ll bring home the bacon, for sure.

Was at a function with a doctor one time. His kids were behind schedule and he switched into Surgeon Mode. The guy was on the Alpha side of things in general, but he probably could have commanded an entire Battalion by presence alone when he switched into that mode. Was pretty impressive. Further impressive was his wife’s response. She instantly took care of what he wanted done without a lick of complaint. She knew that mode very well and dealt with what needed to be dealt with. I was quite impressed.

When you’re used to commanding a room full of people, you have to learn a lot of the Alpha skill set. It’s a part of your job requirement, all told. But it doesn’t always filter completely back through a person’s personality, as there is other programing involved.

I’d say the complaints about unfulfilling marital sex are a typical example of a first world problem. There are a couple of things we need to keep in mind about it.

First of all, most married people throughout history didn’t have an exciting sex life and weren’t expected to have one. It was commonly accepted that marital sex pretty much ends after childbirth. The bitter toil necessary for mere survival sapped people’s libidos. Back when medicine was either useless or largely non-accessible, plus child mortality was high, women had to use 80-100% of their reproductive capacity just to keep families from going extinct. For example, only 2 or 3 children among 7 or 8 survived into adulthood. This means most married women were most of the time a) pregnant b) stressed-out, fat slobs with missing teeth, ballooning more and more after each pregnancy, having to look after 3 or 4 brats all the time while working themselves to death.

Add to this that in bygone eras women normally aged VERY badly due to their harsh, draining existence. Look at pictures of rural India for a present-day example. Do you see any women over 30 capable of inducing an erection? I don’t. All this prevented people from having an exciting marital sex life. Most people had an intense sex life for a few months or years in their late teens, but then kids arrived and everyone became a pack mule, off to the fields. Look at archive pictures of average Westerners – they looked like crap.

Another issue, as Brendan pointed out, is hedonism being a cultural norm. Hedonism is normally born of uncertainty, because when everything becomes uncertain, people want to enjoy life while they can. The collapse of religion play a big role in that. Without the promise of the afterlife, your earthly existence is all you have, so naturally you want to live it to the fullest. That’s why young people in the West have ridiculous expectations in life i.e. a cool office job, a fantastic partner, a mind-blowing sex life, lots of exciting travel and free time, and all of it before they turn 35. Because after that, you wither away and die, and that’s it – it’s all over for you. Not even your culture will survive – most Westerners have already pretty much accepted that.

Another result is that sex is treated as the most important life function, the primary source of fulfillment and happiness, both inside and outside marriage. Our culture puts enormous value on sexual satisfaction. Of course, in these circumstances most people will find their sex life lacking.

And yet another issue is Western women’s deteriorating mental health. Women were designed to exist on the African savannah; in an advanced civilization, they’re just walking disasters. The average Western woman is a psychological basket case. Feminist indoctrination, her infertility, the tons of contraceptives she takes, the chemical pollutants in her drinking water, genetically modified food are all messing with her brain. She has to work pretty much like male beta drones, so she’s angry, stressed and exhausted. So she seeks balance in life by looking for an unicorn man, the perfect mix of alpha and beta, to calm her hamster and alleviate her misery.

That’s a big reason why Western women’s expectations towards men have become so ridiculous; frustrated hypergamy is only another one. They’re, simply put, mentally unstable. Their lives have turned into a monstrosity, so they need a huge counterbalance just to feel OK – and most men aren’t capable of providing that.

One good example is a Daily Mail article that was linked in a comment a while ago, penned by an aging spinster who was a typical upper middle class urban slut. She wrote that she and her girlfriends were normally only willing to accept a man as a partner if he was “really amazing”. Huh? REALLY amazing? Wtf? Just what kind of an arrogant, insufferable, insane twat a woman has to be to think that she’s entitled to a “really amazing” partner? Who the hell does she think she is anyway? Only a dying, hopeless culture could spawn people who thing that they deserve “really amazing” partners.

One of the things that stuck me about the OP is this obsession with sex that women (who do not have much of a sex drive anyway) have. In the days when I settled more Petitions for the Dissolution of Marriage than is good for one, and where the usual Petition was based on what we call fact b, namely unreasonable behaviour, I never, that I recall, itemised so much as once the husband’s unreasonable behaviour, as being caused by his insistence on or refusal to indulge in sex. The complaints were always of the toothpaste cap variety. That may be changing as (thanks to the government) an unhappy divorcing wife can now add that final touch to her marital unhappiness by a false rape or attempted rape claim. When I drew Divorce Petitions that final kick tended to be an allegation of violence but just as there is never any evidence of rape, I never saw so much as a bruise, never mind a cut, nor for that matter a doctor’s certificate, although there was the the young woman who when I enquired where her injury was, turned round, rasied her skirt, and gave me an eyeful – of nothing than her posterior! It’s a tough job and somebody had to do it: I got the bullet.

Reading these comments slowly top to bottom says a lot. With the exception of Natalie the women here are making an honest attempt at biblical marriage. I think it is remarkable because as I stated before there is nothing to support them. T is on the margin still holding a few cards and one of them is in full gina tingle. Her husband has got him some good pussy there. Reading her comments will make a man’s dick hard. (Dalrock you maybe have the only place on the internet where an erection with out participation of the wife is godly, for instuctional purposes) No need for you ladies to cat fight over details make love to your husbands with all of your openings and don’t bounce checks.

Edita would be another exception greyghost. Well, it may be an effort at some form of Biblical marriage, but it actually appears to be the same fem-centric form of traditionalism that affords the most cover for the feminism in the church.

There is so much here in the comments. The self esteem thing jumps out. Self esteem is the last bastion of the empathy seeker. If there is no credible empathy garnering drama relationally (which could mean there isnt, or that the cried wolf syndrome has run well past its shelf life) then self esteem is perfect to fall back upon. The trick is then to make self esteem requisite to others and how they comport with her. Or not, no matter, self esteem has to be a wide spread problem, doesnt it, because after all there are aisles of books about it, articles, PSA’s, secular and religious and nary a mention in Christian circles of the overlapping circles of narcissism and low self esteem.

She wants no sex because she doesn’t feel beautiful. Never mind that her husband WANTS sex with her, somehow the attraction in that doesn’t count, like so many trivial things men do. You know, working daily, caring for lots of things at home, tending children, taking on more and more stress….none of that builds her esteem. Well, it does when other men do it as evidenced by the ubiquitous “he is so sexy when he is doing that” comments regarding TV imagery etc.

Interesting perspective. I think that there is obligation in love. It isn’t just an emotion it’s an action and there are certain things that you should do, and things that you should not do in a loving relationship. A lot of these posts have been about how husbands and wives are obligated to provide sex to one another so I’m assuming that I’m not alone in thinking that there is an expectation and entitlement in that area at least.

But commitment is a different story. Obligation ceases to be love when someone else puts that obligation on you. That’s what entitlement does – it says “I deserve X and you’re going to provide it to me or else!” That was what I was thinking and speaking of. Think paying the electric bill. They aren’t providing the service out of love but with implied obligation.

A commitment is an obligation that the person puts on themself. Commitments are made out of love. When you say to someone “I’m going to do X.” then that puts the pressure on YOU to get it done. It’s a vow that you will do something, and if you don’t do that thing it speaks badly on YOU. This speaks to marriage. Part of the marriage vows that’s been typically implied by its very nature is unconditional sexual access. We’re talking about it in terms of obligation, but it’s not an enforced one like the electric bill. In part of standing up and giving the traditional marriage vows, the new wife is stating that she will provide unconditional sexual access. This is part of the commitment to marriage that she is (hopefully) making out of love. But she breaks her own word when she willfully refuses sexual access to her husband.

This issue is ultimately about wives not living up to the marriage commitment.

What Sheila forgets in her article is that instructions to the husband and instructions to the wife are independent of each other. A wife does not get an out on submitting if her husband is an unloving jerk. The husband does not get to stop being loving if his wife refuses. And a wife cannot refuse/deprive/postpone even if her husband is unloving.

From Sheila in the comments: “To insinuate that a wife MUST ALWAYS make love whenever her husband wants to–even if she’s in pain, even if she just had a miscarriage, even if she just lost her mother, does not promote a healthy view of marriage, and is not consistent with the context of this verse, which is about mutuality, not selfishness.” —> She has the wrong view of sexuality. It is animal, selfish, draining, boring, bad. The reality is that it is the glue of marriage, the exact thing that is needed if you suffered a miscarriage, lost your mother, are in pain, etc. Those feelings get explored together. A wife must always feed her marriage. By definition, what makes a marriage unique from other relationships IS the sex.

All this talk about a wife’s attraction normally dwindling in marriage is missing an understanding about the nature of women: we are attracted to our man when we appreciate him, when we see the things he does for us, when we do not take him for granted, when we are grateful. Christian wives have to learn to feed their hearts with thankful thoughts and they will mysteriously find their attraction growing. Most women have to work to choose the right thoughts… if not, our men become invisible because we are literally choosing not to “see” him.

If I understand it properly, the wife only gets a max of 14 days after childbirth to rest and have her body heal (the unclean period in Lev 12). After that, it is my opinion that if your body needs more healing, fine, but your responsibility to serve your husband remains. Creativity arises when problems interfere with life.

I had a brief exchange with Mrs. Gregoire that leads me to believe that she sees veto power and decision-making about sexual activity as the wife’s domain exclusively. She wrote about a reader whose husband was displeased because he wanted some particular activity (she won’t say what it was, but it’s pretty clear that he was requesting oral sex) and the woman wanted something else instead. Sheila fully supported the woman’s view of herself as being the victim of an unfair request. She actual wrote that the husband was being selfish for stating his preference.

One thing which is noteworthy on the topic of oral sex is the righteous indignation is almost exclusively reserved for wives performing oral sex on their husbands. I’m not saying there aren’t those who have a sincere interpretation that oral sex is not biblically permitted, but that very often what we are seeing is really just another veiled objection to submission. Oral sex performed by a wife on her husband is simply too submissive for feminist Christians to think of without having a visceral, emotional reaction rooted in their rejection of submission. With the case in point, Sheila writes in her post Deciding your boundaries* that she doesn’t believe that oral sex is sinful. Her objection is to a spouse requesting it if the other “isn’t comfortable” with it. This is just another rationalization for wifely control.

One more caveat, and I’m going to use oral sex as an example (I hope I haven’t lost any readers by actually typing that, but honestly, I need you to know what I’m talking about). I don’t believe this is sinful…

It’s also being selfish to demand something that your spouse is truly not comfortable giving. While I don’t think there’s anything wrong with oral sex, for instance, if a spouse really doesn’t want to do it, then you should never, ever push them. Why would you break trust with someone you love over this? Is it worth wrecking the ability that sex has to bring you together? The marriage bed is meant to be an extremely safe place. If you turn it into something that isn’t safe because you’re insisting on something that your spouse doesn’t want to do, then you’re wrecking something precious.

This is really just another way of the Christian wife doling out the snacks and deciding which ones are good enough for her husband, and which ones are “unhealthy”. If anyone doubts this, note that Sheila closes this part of the topic with the standard reminder that Christian husbands are more likely to get mom’s (wife’s) approval if they don’t argue with her:

Besides, if it is something that isn’t really sinful–or even that extreme–you’ll likely find that if you spend a few years being really giving and helping your spouse to relax and feel wonderful in bed, then he or she will be far more willing, and even eager, to try other things later on.

*In this she appears to be referring to the same email she was discussing in the link by SSM, so this would seem to provide further context there.

@Ellie,“From Sheila in the comments: “To insinuate that a wife MUST ALWAYS make love whenever her husband wants to–even if she’s in pain, even if she just had a miscarriage, even if she just lost her mother, does not promote a healthy view of marriage, and is not consistent with the context of this verse, which is about mutuality, not selfishness.”
This is completely typical of Marxist/Feminist/Women arguing. Take what your opponent is saying, twist it and amplify it, then state that it is their position. The Obama campaign did the exact same thing when they told young women that the Republicans wanted to take their birth control.

No men are saying what she is saying. That is a lie she is putting in the mouths of the opposition.

If the Gospel equals God’s word, and if you must submit to God and follow his word to be saved, then obviously deviating and rebelling agaisnt the Lord would be an act of unbeliefe and non-faith – meaning that anyone who does this does not believe and thus, is not a Christian.

The New Testament also clearly states that a wife must submit to her husband (Ephesians 5:22-33). It is quite clear that this “woman” does not read the gospel, nor has she probably sat through many sermons.

She is creating her own philosophy and theology so she can do what she wants. When she wants to, which is Pagan and anti-Cristian.

Anyone who deviates from the word of the Lord and does not believe shall take their place in the lake of fire for enternity. Period. This Fembot will be sizzling in 3000 degree celsius heat forever. You don’t have to.

No men are saying what she is saying. That is a lie she is putting in the mouths of the opposition.

Yeah, because these women feel uncomfortable. Likely indignant, without really knowing why. They just know they feel it. Sheila and Obama are essentially providing the hamster spin that the women themselves have not come up with. It is the ultimate manipulation.

Politics in the modern era boils down to throwing as much mud on your opposition hoping some of it will stick and then promising more ‘free stuff’ than the other guy. Mittens had certain limits he wouldn’t cross, Obama had none, guess who won?

“From Sheila in the comments: “To insinuate that a wife MUST ALWAYS make love whenever her husband wants to–even if she’s in pain, even if she just had a miscarriage, even if she just lost her mother, does not promote a healthy view of marriage, and is not consistent with the context of this verse, which is about mutuality, not selfishness.”

I mean SERIOUSLY.
There is nothing that an average Christian man more desires that to thrust his throbbing cock deeply and vigorously into the wounded, stretched, torn and bleeding vagina of a woman who has given birth mearly days prior so that he can have the devine experience of pounding her through her shrieks and wails of pain.
I mean SERIOUSLY.
“Oh your mom just died? Well don’t dry those tears, cause I forgot lube.”
I mean SERIOUSLY.
“Sorry honey, I know you just miscarried and there are still remains of the fetus in your vagina and uterus as it hasn’t fully cleaned itself yet, but I need some action. The extra bits should add some texture.”
SERIOUSLY. This is how these people PAINT YOU when they are argue against you. By setting up these scenarios, they are saying you are guilty of these things.

Her first line of defense is some version of NAWALT. Her second is the strawman: take the most extreme position or argument which the opponent did not take or make, attribute it to the opponent, hold it up for ridicule, then knock the strawman down.

Her third is “don’t hit me I’m a girl!”, usually expressed as “I’m just a lil’ ol’ nice Christian woman, just tryin’ to git the nice young ‘uns hitched so they can go make babies; and you mean old men come in here and are nasty to me and not being nice.”

Her fourth is exasperation and anger. This is usually expressed as accusing the dissenter of making accusations against her or a commenter, or tarring “all Christians” or “the CHurch” with too broad a brush.

Her fifth and final tactic is refusing to post dissenting views, and the mod/ban hammer.

1) This is my favorite blog. I want to say thanks, Dalrock, for a well-run blog with excellent content. The engagement that follows is highly worthwhile and enjoyable too.

2) As to the issue of “refusal” or “depriving” regarding marital sex, I want to offer my two cents on how that issue should be handled in general IMO, as it is in my house: The man is in all authority over the wife, just as Jesus is over the church. It is the wife’s place, under his umbrella, to make requests and petitions. When the sex is harmonious, great. When there is a breakdown, such as the woman not feeling well, it is for her to petition her husband for a reprieve. It is the wise husband’s position to carefully consider her petitions (just as God considers ours) and then he must decide if he will accommodate it. Any man with a clue knows that if she has the flu or is going through chemo, he would be wise to grant her petition. He may also know when she is fronting, and exert his authority to require sex in spite of her petitions. He would know the legit from the bogus, and the distinction would bear out. This is exactly the model that we have in our relationship with God. Problem solved.

Any wise King considers his subjects, cares for them, and sees to their well-being. Further, a wise King would not deprive his wife of sex she petitions for, because any man with a clue knows that if it goes on long enough, she will reject him as King and travel to a new domain. A bad King will always suffer rebellion. A good King rules well, and carefully- and a wise subject would accept the edicts of this good King.

3) I want to reiterate the comments about how truly beautiful and harmonious a D/s marriage can be. These defiant females can’t get out of their own way. I could expound on this to no end, but I will simply say that the woman who sets herself at the feet of her man in deference and respect will be the most beautiful woman he has ever seen, and her petitions WILL be heard.

4) For all the mention of prospective reading material, I have to say once more that my new book, ‘The Altar’, is right up this alley. For those wanting to get more insight, or wanting to introduce some of these ideas to someone who needs them, it is a well-suited book. It is hard-hitting but still gentle, and addresses MANY of the issues dealt with in this blog, and this particular post.

I won’t post a link, but just click on my name and you can get it instantly for less than the cost of a cup of coffee.

Bonus point- You can sniff out the REAL women of God with a simple question:

Is Jesus in all authority and dominion?

If a woman answers no, you have your answer. If a woman answers yes, then she will have no choice but to see the parallel between Christ/bride and Husband/wife in the scriptures, and will no longer attempt to subvert with ideas like Christ being the head like the source of a river. (the Bible says He is in all authority and dominion. Kinda hard to dodge that)

People who are “egalitarian” or tout the “equals” ideology even as Christians, are treating Jesus as a “let’s just be friends” beta orbiter, certainly not her Lord or Master, because of the parallels.

Seriously, that is like saying “Ok, Jesus can be my God, but I get an equal say over this and he cannot overrule me, because we are equals.” How very absurd. I find that people like Sheila who try to bend the Word around to say something else are doing the equivalent to what the serpent (Satan) did in Genesis: “Yea, hath God said?” They start to say “God didn’t really say THAT, He meant something else” in order to avoid just obeying.

So, not only is Sheila operating as Satan’s mouthpiece, but is spouting falsehood (the devil’s only weapon) and is risking the dire warnings the Bible has about twisting and distorting the Word.

Equal authority is a paradox in and of itself. It cannot exist.

We know that rebellion is about the worst thing you can offer God, and that obedience and service is the very best you can offer. If you are not obedient but rebel, you are NOT HIS. If you are not His, you do not get His blessing, His protection, or His inheritance.

Similarly, a woman has the exact same framework with a husband. If you are not obedient, but rebellious, you are not his, he knows it, and you don’t deserve squat. The honorable woman who deserves her husband’s best is the deferential woman who makes sure he knows she is HIS by offering her obedience and service, and showing deference to him- Just as we should do with God.

I just can’t make it any more plain than that, and all the flailing about doesn’t change this obvious, basic, enduring, eternal premise.

The word safe could be fodder for an entire line of inquiry. It’s in the same subset as the word balance, a nebulous to meaningless word that serves as an emotional filler in a sentence. Who could object to balance? Who can object to safe? If someone says “I just want a balanced life and to feel safe”, gosh the lemmings will follow that with all sorts of crowing agreements. BUT, ask for an explanation and sit back and watch. It means whatever it needs to mean at the moment it is plopped into the sentence.

“A woman just wants to feel safe”

By implication, if she doesn’t, ALL bets are off; the marriage itself may be off. So this line about the marriage bed being a safe place is like a Narwal, it really does exist, yet its mention still calls mythology to mind.

Bet you Sheila regrets showing up on Dalrock’s radar a little over a year ago, arguing about the sanctity of FIreproof now, eh? lol

When Dalrock first took her to task for touting Fireproof as a Godly movie showing a proper Christian marriage, I went to her site. I did some key word searches on her site, including. Ephesians 5:22, the word “submission.”

Zero results. Up to that point in time, she had been a self-professed, Minister for Christian marriage (buy the books! The DVDs! Book Sheila for a special speaking engagement! $$$$$$$$$$!!), and she had completely ignored the Bible’s clearest proscriptions for Christian marriage.

The very first article on submission and any mention of Ephesians 5:22 on her entire blog, was a guest post by Elspeth, NOT Sheila’s own writing. Elspeth submitted that article AFTER Dalrock and others had already highlighted the fact that “To Love, Honor and Vacuum” had zero articles or discussions on the topic of Ephesians 5:22.

Up to that point, she completely avoided the topic….until Dalrock began highlighting her subversive and heretical teachings. Then WIFELY SUBMISSION became a topic too big and widely discussed to ignore. Hence the repeated attempts to rationalize, explain away and re-define what Ephesians 5:22 plainly states.

Sheila is a false teacher. Whether she’s deliberately teaching heresy to profit from poking married Christian women’s hamsters into rebellion, or she’s simply beholden to her own hamsterbatics because of the cognitive dissonance between her Women’s Studies education and the Biblical proscription for Godly marriage, she has no business “ministering” Christian marriage.

Correction….she’s made it BIG BUSINESS “ministering” feminist rebellion into the minds of Christian wives.

Well, you and I differ somewhat on Sue. She’s (usually) reasonable but sometimes lets a comment thread get the better of her.

Actually her first line of defense is a demand for evidence from a scientific study which supports the claim the dissenter makes. In her mind, a proposition, theory or principle is dubious at best unless a study has borne it out. She denigrates, derides and dismisses anecdotal evidence despite the manosphere presenting literal mountains of it, She denies the existence of the feminine imperative, the phenomena of the “alpha widow” and “carousel watcher”, and she questions the validity of the proposition that sluthood can damage and eventually destroy pair bonding ability, despite the very large amount of anecdotal evidence supporting their existence.

Her site is of limited value for women and no value for men, other than for learning about women’s communication styles and approach to the SMP. She says some good things for some women. Her site is best understood as geared toward helping East Coast college women and middle- to high- socioeconomic status women between the ages of 18 and 30 navigate the SMP so as to avoid getting pumped and dumped by cads or knocked up. Her site isn’t geared to the interests of men, working class or lower middle class women, or married women. She by no means presents a full picture of female sexuality. It’s interesting to comment there sometimes. But men should not take dating or relationship advice from her or her commenters.

Gregoire’s argumentation and positions are even more troubling and inconsistent, in large part because she, unlike Susan, purports to minister to women in God’s name. She purports to exegesize and explain Scripture. Gregoire holds herself out as a beacon of morality to women, especially married women, on matters of sexual right and wrong. She purports to base it all on Scripture. Even worse, some of her claims and positions are based on nonsensical Scriptural interpretations that can’t be defended even just looking at the plain text. Truthfully, I’ve never heard it said that Ephesians 5:22-24’s statement that the “husband is the head of the wife” means he is the “source” rather than the actual “Leader”. This interpretation makes absolutely no sense when considered with its modifying clause, “as Christ is the head of the church”.

I suspect this is why this post is called “Untethered”. Gregoire’s advice isn’t grounded in sound theology. It’s unmoored from solid Bible teaching. It’s an example of how a little error can lead one very astray.

Bet you Sheila regrets showing up on Dalrock’s radar a little over a year ago, arguing about the sanctity of FIreproof now, eh? lol

What baffles me to this day is:

1) Sheila is the one who ultimately talked me into watching the movie. I would have preferred to crawl over broken glass, but she was insistent that I had it all wrong in lumping it in with the endless courtship fantasy and that I couldn’t possibly understand the movie from the summaries I was reading. You can see the whole exchange on her blog here.
2) When I wrote my Firebombed critique of the movie I intentionally left Sheila’s name out of the post. This made it harder because I also couldn’t quote her arguments, but I did this as a courtesy. I didn’t want her to end up tangling with the manosphere if she didn’t want to. I emailed Sheila at the time to make sure she was aware of this.
3) After 1 & 2 above, Sheila came to my site because she was outraged that I referred to the wife in Fireproof as acting “whorish”.

Sheila insisted every step of the way, and I’m painted as cruel for ultimately taking the bait. She is out there publicly teaching women this nonsense, and insisted on spouting it to my readers as a correction to me. I don’t mind that she chose to try to correct me, because this how we do things here. But once I responded it was the mother of all “Don’t Hit Me I’m A Girl” accusations by other women in the manosphere.

I suspect this is why this post is called “Untethered”. Gregoire’s advice isn’t grounded in sound theology. It’s unmoored from solid Bible teaching. It’s an example of how a little error can lead one very astray.

I meant it in that way along with others, but they are all related. Sheila has become untethered from both of the anchors which would keep her steady, and both are due to the same rebellion. In her rebellion she is rejecting her husband, the “rock” faithful Christian wives can cling to when their emotions storm over them, just like she is rejecting the very Rock that husband’s biblical role is modeled after. This causes her to become erratic in her thinking and therefore her writing, which is another meaning of untethered (or if you prefer unhinged).

@TI do trust his judgment. Wouldn’t have married him if I didn’t. I’m not sure if that counts towards submission as he and I are in agreement about just about everything of import to either of us. He generally makes the call that I would’ve made, even when Im not there to give my input. We are so well matched that I never really considered the submission issue and how it effected my own life and marriage.

I had a very similar perspective as this prior to three years ago. My husband and I were very compatible and agreeable. Until…it mattered most.

Until he made decisions I did not agree with while on deployment in Africa. When it was most important for me to submit to him and his decisions in order to maintain harmony in our home through this separation. When he needed me most to be in biblical submission to him, I failed.

His threshold had been breached, the weight of not having my complete submission all those years along with rightful anger brought him to a resolve that our marriage would not continue as is. He had no intentions on divorcing me but remained emotionally detached until I repented of my rebellion and asked his and God’s forgiveness.

I hope it doesn’t have to come to this for you before you heed the wise counsel you’ve been presented with in this thread.

Since we’re talking Submission and Fireproof, one of the things that always got me about Fireproof the one time I saw most of it (was on in the house and I was busy with something), is that the “Love Dare” bit was originally done by his *mother* for his *father*. From what little I know of it, it would make far more sense for a Wife to do something like the Love Dare to rebuild the trust she had broken with her husband. It, however, wouldn’t work back the other way, as much of it comes off as a “practice in submission”.

It’d help if I’d read the book, but since we were on the topic, I thought I’d throw that out there.

My closing plea to Sheila in an attempt to avoid actually watching the movie was:

I’m confused, and perhaps I need to see the movie. You are saying the business with the wife stopping wearing her wedding ring, hiding the fact that she was married and lining up another man occurred before her husband accepted the 40 day challenge, and that the movie shows this as a very shameful whorish act. This isn’t how I understand it from the summaries. In fact, one summary is very clear that she only puts her wedding ring back on in the very end of the movie, and that the doctor she is going after didn’t know she was married and broke it off after the fireman husband confronted him. If instead they are judging her for acting like a harlot, then showing her repenting and reproving herself to her husband as part of her own 40 day challenge, this would make the movie something else entirely.

Can you confirm this for me please? If so, I don’t need to see the movie but wouldn’t mind doing so. If the movie shows the wife as essentially an innocent victim whom the husband has to convince not to be a whore by him completing a marriage challenge, then I would really find it painful to watch.

Dalrock, I’d agree with Sherry’s assessment. Both characters only came to repentance later in the movie after the marriage had fallen apart, and she did take off her wedding ring before he did the 40 day challenge. They both did apologize to each other at the end of the movie (and the movie did show where she was also being too unrealistic of her husband, and choosing not to see when he was doing stuff right). It was actually a very good portrayal of how a marriage can fall apart, and how you can bring it back together by remembering commitment. I really don’t think you’d disagree with it.

This was what convinced me to watch the movie, and is why I wrote the original Firebombed post (while keeping Sheila’s name originally out of it).

Why was that something that “got you” about the movie? I see that comment made in many veins, as defense of the movies balance, as a shocking swerve into the uncharted territory of holding wives accountable, etc…..in an honest world that fact would be ho hum, a non event.

In her rebellion she is rejecting her husband, the “rock” faithful Christian wives can cling to when their emotions storm over them, just like she is rejecting the very Rock that husband’s biblical role is modeled after.

Thus we get to the other side of this coin – based on the short vid clips and pics we’ve seen of her husband (especially when he stands there in bad posture while Sheila essentially emasculates him in front of her audience), it’s no wonder she struggles with submission and rebellion. He’s no “rock” and it’s quite obvious who wears the pants in the Gregoire household.

The part about it originally being his mother who completed the Love Dare is a bolt-on to distract from the obvious contradiction with the biblical framing of husband and wife. See this interview with one of the Kendrick Brothers (emphasis mine):

PW: I find it very interesting that you would take on the subject matter of marriage as a topic for your next movie. What led you to pursuing this particular topic?

SK: We had been praying specifically for a storyline that would help strengthen our culture and had considered several options. To be honest, Alex didn’t initially want to do a movie on marriage though he was taken by the idea of daring a man to love his wife.

I only saw Fireproof once and at the beginning of my Red Pill days, so it’s really just the only thing that stood out. But, it “got” me due to one important detail: Men & Women aren’t the same. That should be blatantly obvious to all Christians, so there’s 0 reason it would work both ways.

And, I don’t disagree, that holding women accountable should be “ho hum” deal. That it isn’t is more of our problem.

But I am curious if someone has come across the book Love Dare itself. Mostly out of morbid curiosity.

It doesn’t surprise me it’s a bolt-on effect, but it was more (as I said, my early Red pill days) a thought of “well, duh, that isn’t going to work ON a wife”. Which should be a cue that they didn’t know what they were doing.

My wife mentioned the other day that she sees the Love Dare book at pretty much every yard sale. I don’t blame the seller, since they get to appear to be pro Christian marriage while unloading an awful book. It is an incredible win-win.

I’ve actually had people argue to me after I pointed out how terrible Fireproof is that it is based on a real book (The Love Dare) which itself is supposedly good. The argument being that the movie did a poor job of presenting an existing book. However the book is merely a plot device in the movie, and was written by the Kendrick brothers as part of the larger effort of the movie. This idea that they are separate is simply not true, yet it is very common.

as a shocking swerve into the uncharted territory of holding wives accountable

It was shocking. I watched this movie a few years ago while I was still firmly entrenched in husbands as goofball father and wives as the smart go to for the family. It was meant to shock in just that way. The “Oh my God! Why would a woman have to do that?! Oooh, what a brave and amazing woman she must have been to do that! What a d**k her husband must have been to not respond sooner to that!” It is impossible to see that we don’t view a man doing it the same way until it is blatantly pointed out to us in a completely in your face manner. We don’t want to see it. We are special snowflakes dontcha know. It was a slap awake and a bucket of ice water down my back what I was finally awakened to all of this.

I wonder now, if this was put in there to further reinforce the so called power of women.

Actually, I think the book was written after the release and popularity of the movie. So many people we so moved by it they started to request the book. It was only a prop for the movie so they wrote it themselves after so many requests. I wonder how many marriages it actually ended up hurting when implemented by men.

OK, I just grabbed my copy of the Love Dare off the bookshelf where’d I’d stuffed it (it was a gift, btw, and HHG and I have never read it). I see now that it is the couple’s devotional one. Since I wrote about submission on my own blog today, I looked up Day 147 “Love is willing to submit.” They do mention the submission hierarchy of children submitting to parents, wives to husbands, and husbands to Christ. Each devotion has a verse at the top to capture the idea. Which verse do you suppose they put at the top of this day? There are lots of good ones about children obeying their parents and wives submitting to their husbands in the Bible…yet they chose 1 Peter 2:13 NASB:Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. That’s right, they picked one about obeying the government. Figures.

BTW, I mention in an upcoming post that the reason I reference Fireproof so much is it is so universally loved by Christians on the topic of marriage. There is nothing else like it. Even the folks on Catholic Answers Forum love the message on Christian marriage, with the exception of it not covering the issue of children/birth control, so it isn’t just an evangelical/protestant thing. It would be easy to say I’m making it into a strawman, but before I started writing about it I couldn’t find any real criticism of it (the message at least, not the production/acting). Even now, where outside the manosphere will you find anyone pointing this painfully obvious stuff out? This is five years after the introduction of the movie, and after nearly every church has held a viewing. Modern Christians are absolutely entranced by this movie. Anyone who didn’t already know this, just ask a few Christians you know in person what they think about the movie and its message on marriage, and you will be told how amazing it is and how it shares God’s plan for marriage.

Something that’s been hinted at but not brought out square on is that submission and sex in marriage is something that one person freely offers the other person. A common tactic in this discussion is to claim that either of these things are being forced upon the other simply because a passage of Scripture is mentioned.

Women are to submit– it’s something freely given to the husband, not something he demands.
Men are to love their wives– it’s something freely given to the wife, not something she earns.

Women and men are to not deny each other– it’s not something that one is to demand of the other or force upon the other, but is to be freely and lovingly given to the other.

When we allow those in opposition to these Scriptures to define these things as something forced upon the other individual, we allow for a twisting of the passage.

I think that we could cut off a lot of the disagreement and protests if we combat the idea that it’s something forced upon another person, while at the same time stressing the benefits and letting the Bible hold people accountable to their end.

Both sides have an unconditional obligation, and yet neither side is to force the other side to comply.

where outside the manosphere will you find anyone pointing this painfully obvious stuff out?

Is it painfully obvious, though, to those outside of the manosphere? I ask because how many churches preach about any kind of submission today? Even submission to the church? I’m Catholic and we go to what many would consider a more traditional and conservative church. We’ve been going there for 7 years and I don’t recall ever hearing any readings on submission or homilies (and, like a good Catholic, I never read the bible myself. Something I am working on remedying). Submission to my husband, outside of what came somewhat naturally to me, something I fought against because I thought that is what I was supposed to do, was completely foreign to me.

Also, I grew up Methodist. Never heard about this (not that I always listened, but this I think I would have heard).

@8oxer, thanks. I actually didn’t know that she was a rabid feminist actress. Wait, isn’t that redundant? I just followed a link from the bottom of the page while reading an article where Cameron was whining about Amazon and Starbucks legally avoiding taxes in the UK and how immoral it is for them to do that.

I have been in and around mainstream protestant churches for 30 years. Not once have i ever heard anyone preach from a pulpit or teach in a class a proper understanding of Eph. 5:22-24 regarding wifely submission to a husband. I am convinced this is because the women in the church chafe at the preaching; misunderstand “submission” to mean “meek, mousy doormat”; and threaten the pastor with withdrawal of attendance and tithe money.

No. I get laughed at a lot. Over the Holidays I talked with my father, he told me my step-monster reads my blog and bursts out laughing, “HA! Oh, you gotta hear this!” She’s twice divorced, has a divorced daughter, and has never been anything but miserable. No fruit on her tree but shows no remorse slandering me to my father.

i saw the movie Fireproof long before any ‘red-pill’ days though I think by rearing and disposition I’ve always been sorta red-pill anyway. The movie strikes me as good in dealing with the idea of unconditional love on the part of the husband, but HORRID in almost every other way. Honestly when I was watching one of the earlier scenes, my initial thought was, “what the hell is wrong with this woman and why is she complaining?” If the movie were framed as a modern day take on the Hosea idea (loving the backslider etc) then yeah, okay, but otherwise…well I think the movies is actually useful as a jumping off point for discussion in the right setting.

Deti, one pastor I did prison work with told me flat out it was because his wife was listening.

But yes, of course its because of the women in general, and the rule of thumb about how much angry mail it generates.

Once in my former Houston TX mega church (“Woodlands Church”) the pastor was preaching on the topic…..as he talked a little TO the women, the woman in front of me was shaking her leg and foot so fast it disappeared.

Suddenly the kinetic energy transferred miraculously to her head and neck as she nodded to the main part of the sermon on the mans servant leadership

I think that we could cut off a lot of the disagreement and protests if we combat the idea that it’s something forced upon another person, while at the same time stressing the benefits and letting the Bible hold people accountable to their end.

Sorry, just not true sadly. There are emotional workarounds that enable women to avoid this and maintain some visage of the various straw men they have cultivated over the years. How else can anyone explain the contradiction that exists in what actually are the mega trends in society, and what are said to be the mega trends in society.

Near ubiquitous are women claiming that the church is a male monolith teaching patriarchal domination, and that this ogre type behavior is the taught norm which accounts for the divorce rate….this even from the very few women who could watch ten divorces, 8 of which are filed by women, and actually say “hey, 8 of 10 were filed by women”…meaning at least visual examples of arithmetic are still compelling…barely.

The fear of the evil patriarch in church is motivated by what? Well, the expressed fear of the evil patriarchy. IOW-hysteria

And, I don’t disagree, that holding women accountable should be “ho hum” deal. That it isn’t is more of our problem.

This is the entire meal here, meat and potato. That they aren’t is more our problem. I assume you mean men. And, I agree technically.

Read “Threatpoint” (not full name) and some other posts here, things you may already know and see some of why its yes, our fault, but its understandable at the same time that men choose to let her off the hook because we have the instant full force of the law to back her up, and one needs that comprehensive view to fully appreciate this.

Men cant hold wives accountable lest they end up divorced

Church cant hold women accountable lest pastor end up divorced, and/or the women drag the men out of the church and the flock decreases

The law cant hold women accountable because circles of power pander….that’s simple…and nothing is more pleasant to an old white guy in gubmit than positive female feed back and for pundits even written female feedback is an emotional boost, because he is likely getting no positive reinforcement at home.

Women don’t hold women accountable because its not in self interest.

Unless and until women are held to account….nothing, none of this will change…period.

I think Fireproof is less “liked” by most Christians as it’s a “Christian Phenomenon”. It’s one of those things you’re supposed to “like as a Christian”, but I imagine a blind-survey would show it wasn’t as well liked as we’re all lead to believe.

At the same time, I imagine most people are just glancing over what’s actually being said and picking out what they want to “hear” from the movie. Which is why they’ll rave about it until you point out a lot of the stupidity. (A lot of this is it due to being a movie and the way people watch movies)

It helps to understand that the concept of a woman being in the wrong in a marriage is almost completely foreign and alien to the Protestant Christian world. The only ways a woman is “wrong” or the culpable party in a marriage is in the case of active unrepentant infidelity, physical abandonment, or active hopeless drug addiction. Even in these cases the husband is chastised because he must have “done something” to cause her misbehavior. And if/when the wife repents and asks forgiveness, the husband receives relentless pressure from the church and its men to “forgive her” and “take her back” to “work on the marriage”.

(If he does something wrong and repents, her decision to divorce is fully justified and she will receive full church support for her “tragic but heroic” course of action. The wayward husband will be harshly judged and probably excommunicated. But if she misbehaves and then repents, divorce is “allowed” but frowned upon and he can expect no moral support from the church. She will be accepted and brought into the women’s fold for “healing” and “restoration”, while he will be viewed forever as “damaged”.)

This is because the Prot world fervently holds that women are the ones who hold marriages together; that it is always the wife’s strength of character and conviction which make a marriage work; and that the man is lost without the woman’s prayers and dedication to God and marriage.

“…some prefer the Manosphere, others, Androsphere. I don’t particularly care who calls it what, so I’ll just apply the Hegelian Dialect and go with the Synthesis, Teh MAndrosphere TM from here on out.” ”

Thank you, Keoni, both for correcting me and for coining such a fine term. Sings, it does.

@ Deti
This might be a frivolous response, but I just want to say “this.” Some of those folks should start talking to the kids of the women they never confronted – if they can find them. My mom and, by extension, the rest of my family changed churches a lot. On the other hand, my mom is crazy. Like “What the hell are you saying to my kids” crazy. Only my dad never said anything, and I grew up hurt and confused because crazy wife was allowed to run rough shod over the family. So yeah, I guess there’s a little residual anger that her emotions were so precious and inviolable and mine were just a problem.

I think Fireproof is less “liked” by most Christians as it’s a “Christian Phenomenon”. It’s one of those things you’re supposed to “like as a Christian”, but I imagine a blind-survey would show it wasn’t as well liked as we’re all lead to believe.

At the same time, I imagine most people are just glancing over what’s actually being said and picking out what they want to “hear” from the movie. Which is why they’ll rave about it until you point out a lot of the stupidity. (A lot of this is it due to being a movie and the way people watch movies)

Either way this makes my point. Fireproof is so universally accepted that it proves the pervasiveness of what we are talking about. It could even be that large numbers of Christians see the problems with Fireproof but are too cowed by Christian culture to point out how profoundly unbiblical it is. I don’t think this is the case, and I don’t think this was your point. I think you are suggesting that it has a cult like following, and that while Christians don’t see anything wrong from a Christian perspective they feel compelled to pretend to enjoy a movie they really don’t. But even if we were to assume that Christians see the profound biblical problems but are afraid to say anything this is extremely telling. So either Christians have been thoroughly exposed to the movie for 5 years and never managed to notice that it doesn’t promote biblical marriage, or Christians have known all along that it promotes something different but don’t care enough about biblical marriage to be willing to mention it. Which is worse?

Again, where are the pastors who noticed what should be obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of the Bible? Shouldn’t someone be able to point to one or two pastors who have been pointing these same things out for the last five years? The problems I point out aren’t small; they are central to the movie itself.

I think that we could cut off a lot of the disagreement and protests if we combat the idea that it’s something forced upon another person, while at the same time stressing the benefits and letting the Bible hold people accountable to their end.

This is something only men can understand or respond to. Women take no responsibility for a damn thing. And no amout of logic or pain for others matters in the slightest to a woman even one that has decided to label herself christian.
Any woman in rebellion is an unworthy wife. Why do you think the laws of misandry were voted in in the first place. Only about my guess 2 to 5 percent of women are actually worthy of a husband. Women like Natalie and T I would never marry or would truely hate to be stuck with. This is based purely on the attitude and character displayed in their writing. If I was married to them and didn’t have kids with them I would drop them real fast you can have everything I’m done. That is why women want the default custody in divorce (hostages).
As an MRA I want more and more men to understand this relationship dynamic so that these women never have the chance to marry. These rebellious women are what I had in mind with the involutary childless spinsterhood meme. Young women really need to see women that hold these attitudes as lonely and single. The point of the rant in response to the statement is maybe more effort should be insuring men vet these women out of worthiness for marriage as a more effective way of changing the general behavior of women towards biblical marriage.

If I was married to them and didn’t have kids with them I would drop them real fast you can have everything I’m done.

Word, my brutha.

I admire the Christian brothers who want to stick it out, mostly because I would never have the tolerance or strength to deal with worthless creatures like these. I can’t help but think that older men would be better off divorcing these useless women anyway, and going off to at least have some peace in their lives.

Aside from getting the children to hold hostage to and poison their minds against their husbands, women also get lifetime alimony in divorce. Even so, if I were in that unenviable position, I’m sure I’d just pay the bitch off and leave anyway. Give me a tiny apartment and huge alimony judgment over the “privilege” of living in slavery any day.

@ar10308 January 8, 2013 at 10:54 am, @Dalrock:This is completely typical of Marxist/Feminist/Women arguing. Take what your opponent is saying, twist it and amplify it, then state that it is their position.
Hmmm, is that a false trail ? “Twist and amplify” — sounds like the game technique of “agree and amplify” to pass sh*t tests. Does this work simply because it is a shaming technique in woman-speak, and so communicates to her the social message to “back off” …?

It could even be that large numbers of Christians see the problems with Fireproof but are too cowed by Christian culture to point out how profoundly unbiblical it is. I don’t think this is the case, and I don’t think this was your point. I think you are suggesting that it has a cult like following, and that while Christians don’t see anything wrong from a Christian perspective they feel compelled to pretend to enjoy a movie they really don’t. But even if we were to assume that Christians see the profound biblical problems but are afraid to say anything this is extremely telling. So either Christians have been thoroughly exposed to the movie for 5 years and never managed to notice that it doesn’t promote biblical marriage, or Christians have known all along that it promotes something different but don’t care enough about biblical marriage to be willing to mention it.

IMHO, there’s no pretending involved, and there is no cult-like status or following either.

Most people don’t watch movies with a critical eye and focused on discerning both overt and covert themes in the plot and dialogs and whether or not it adheres to biblical principles or not.

Most people watch movies to “get sucked in” to the suspension of reality, and immerse themselves in the fictional narrative to simply enjoy the ride.

From the Churchian FemDOM women viewers, to the beta-fied, emasculated nice guy, to the Driscoll-type White Knight wielding the lance of male shame from the pulpit, the story of Fireproof is a “Great Movie About Christian Marriage” because of two things: one, the story is about a married couple having problems, making it teeter on the edge of divorce; and two, in the end, the marriage is reconciled and all’s well that end’s well….so they emerge from the viewing with a feeling that it was a GODLY Movie!

As the viewer lives vicariously through the emotional roller coaster of the characters they subconsciously identify with, they FEEEEL the drama as if they were experiencing it for themselves. Most movie viewers (Christian, pagan, secular and athiest alike) shut off their critical minds and enjoy the emotional manipulation the cinematic medium provides, no matter what movie they watch.

Then when it’s before, after, or some other extra-curricular activity, the church members who’ve seen the movie tell everyone else that they HAVE to see it! It moved them! It’s about the redemption of a troubled Christian marriage! The power of Christianity CAN heal marriage!

Most are simply clueless to the themes and sub-plots.

After all, Dalrock, you had to watch the movie with a skeptical eye and notebook in hand, and using the DVD remote to pause and rewind certain scenes to clearly discern what is wrong with the film from a Biblical perspective. You never allowed the movie to suspend your belief and get absorbed into the narrative.

Most modern day Christians enjoy the rollercoaster experience when you get sucked into a good movie….but most Christians are also wary of movies that wallow in sinful perversions of sexual and violent excess, so they don’t go to the movies as much as they’d like to. So when a movie comes out that their fellow Christians and Churchian leaders rave about as a great movie going experience with a positive message of Christian marriage, they are only to happy to have a chance at enjoying a “good” movie.

I also suspect that there is also another aspect as to why so many Churchian men are enthusiastic about this movie…most Christian men in this day and age have no doubt viewed teh Pr0n while masturbating at some point in their lives, so the guilt they feel for their clearly immoral, sexual transgressions, makes them incapable of seeing the faults of the Wife in the film, because they already identify somewhat with the Husband’s guilt and quest for repentance from the most evil of SINS: Don’t forget the 1st commandment of femDOM Chruchianity: male masturbation while viewing Teh Pr0n is ADULTERY!

In the end of Fireproof, the husband gets redemption and forgiveness, despite his sinful past of “adultery!” Men watching the movie without a critical eye, no doubt emerge from this movie with positive feelings of redemption. Yes Brethren, even if you have committed the sin of adultery by teh pr0n, you can be forgiven, you can be saved, you’re marriage CAN be healed!

I need to be careful how I phrase this, as I want to make clear my thoughts on the subject.

– There’s no *excuse* for why Fireproof has gotten away with the terrible message.
– I can fully understand *why* it has and how things like this will continue.

So, I’ll talk about the second, with everyone being clear I firmly believe the first to be true. I also think it’s worse than you think, Dalrock.

There’s a few things going on, though I attend are much more “conservative” Protestant church, so less of this is interacted with, but I can see it around the more “Christian” areas of the internet and life. (And I very firmly believe this church would never give a “Man up & marry the sluts” sermon, though I’m not sure they’d tackle the subject head on. Probably a little too tactical for their own good.)

– Christians are now “herd bound” as badly as any other part of the popular culture. If it’s popular, they want to get on it as well. This also explains Rollo’s point about making “Christian Friendly” versions of currently popular trends a few years after they hit.

– There is also a desire for “Christian” Media. One of the largest radio networks in the country is KLove, for instance. And you can see that even in the numbers that The Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson’s film) did. There’s a huge market for “Christian” works.

– “Christian” works are, almost to the work, pretty terrible. (Music tending to be the only major exception) There are several decent authors out there, but in the Film/Video realm, it’s pretty much nothing. There’s the occasional small Hollywood film that comes out (“One Night with the King” being a pretty decent example) that’s done by a competent staff with solid actors. So, for the most part, anything that’s tagged as “Christian” and has a decent production values is going to get a lot of play inside the “Christian Herd”.

– Fireproof did something interesting: it merged a decent cast (Kirk Cameron is still a good actor, even for being a bit of a fluffy Christian), okay production values, solid directing (give the brothers credit, they’re pretty capable), some explicit references to the Bible and then mashed it up in a standard Chick Flick.

– Don’t forget, this is still an emotional Chick Flick, in many ways. For as much time as Dalrock has bashed the pulp out of the terrible theology, that’s not how most women are going to look at it. Further, that’s not how a lot of guys are going to look at it.

– Christians have a really annoying tendency, these days, to pick out bits of something that they like (generally the emotions) and carry that on to “improve their walk with God”. But it’s no different 6 months later. Let’s call it what it is: “Emotional Fad Dieting”.

– Film is emotionally manipulative, at its core. All visual media is, but film has a special ability to get inside someone’s emotional resonance in a way few other things can. Further, people will tend to remember “high points”, “emotional reactions” and “the ending” to movies. [We could spend a lot of time talking about the ways film can effect you, but that’s a slightly different subject. Just believe me on this topic.]

Taking this all together, Fireproof hit a spot inside “American Christianity”, especially “American Churchianity”, that was there to launch it. Add in a few women talking about how it “helped their Marriage” and the Blue Pill “Guys, we can work harder!” aspects and you have a brilliant whirlwind of a reinforcement of a non-Biblical Marriage. I don’t think they intended it to take off like it did, but it’s hard to craft a project that would take off bigger inside the Christian Herd.

I think the staying power has much to do with it operating like a Fad. Churches would hold a viewing and maybe 1 study group, it’d last about a year and that was it at *that* Church. But, following the Herd, other Churches repeat the process. Another “fad” right now is Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University, and that’ll die out in the future as well. (Mind you, Dave Ramsey’s advice is *very practical* for a lot of people, so this isn’t a criticism of him, but it’s following the same trend)

So, in the end, I think while a lot of Christians have “seen” Fireproof, most of them just put it in that same box they stuff most every other “Christian” work they see. And that’s not even dealing with the bunker mentality that can pop up, going against the Herd or the fact most people tend to shut their brains off when they think the content is “safe”.

This is not, as I said at the beginning, to excuse the issue. It’s a failure on the parts of hundreds of thousands of Christians that no one major pointed out the problems with the content. But, the reasons it was allowed to get away are pretty straight forward, and just another set of issues that will have to be addressed as well.

Also with this topic, I have yet to actually see anyone start talking about Promise Keepers. The fad followed the exact same pathology and the net result was a few hundred PhD Thesis in Rhetoric. (No joke, it’s a very popular topic over there given how big it got and how quickly it disappeared) It did very little, even for how big it really became. It’s probably a subject for a complete dissection, over multiple posts and multiple bloggers, given that something like it could pop up again. That and had they been on a better track, we’d probably have seen more than the “Last Hurrah of the Beta male”.

Sorry, just not true sadly. There are emotional workarounds that enable women to avoid this and maintain some visage of the various straw men they have cultivated over the years. How else can anyone explain the contradiction that exists in what actually are the mega trends in society, and what are said to be the mega trends in society.

So what you’re saying is that I’m attempting to treat a symptom instead of the disease? I’m not sure that I disagree. However, in the world outside the “whatever-you-want-to-call-men-blogosphere” it seems that the biggest tool women have when you attempt to talk about submission is not just the patriarchy, but the idea that men will run roughshod over women given the chance, and that men are forcing their women to be slaves.

If you don’t have a clear answer to that, or your answer is “well, the Bible says so”, you are not being as clear as you could be, because the truth is that the Bible is empowering and the best for both sexes, not just men, because it recognizes both who we are as people and as male and female as well as how we can function best.

Excellent analysis Keoni Galt and Looking Glass. I might come back with more later, but for now at least wanted to comment on two things.

@Keoni Galt

Most people don’t watch movies with a critical eye and focused on discerning both overt and covert themes in the plot and dialogs and whether or not it adheres to biblical principles or not.

Most people watch movies to “get sucked in” to the suspension of reality, and immerse themselves in the fictional narrative to simply enjoy the ride.

…

As the viewer lives vicariously through the emotional roller coaster of the characters they subconsciously identify with, they FEEEEL the drama as if they were experiencing it for themselves. Most movie viewers (Christian, pagan, secular and athiest alike) shut off their critical minds and enjoy the emotional manipulation the cinematic medium provides, no matter what movie they watch.

…

Most are simply clueless to the themes and sub-plots.

After all, Dalrock, you had to watch the movie with a skeptical eye and notebook in hand, and using the DVD remote to pause and rewind certain scenes to clearly discern what is wrong with the film from a Biblical perspective. You never allowed the movie to suspend your belief and get absorbed into the narrative.

The first part is certainly true, and probably something I too easily forget because I’ve always been painfully aware of the themes in movies and books. I still enjoy the movie for the entertainment value, but at times I do have to consciously push back all of the themes, etc. For that matter, I enjoy the themes part too. This may be why I prefer the They Live glasses metaphor to the matrix red pill one. Even prior to coming to the manosphere much of this was visible to me and yet the people next to me simply couldn’t see it. Fortunately my wife is very similar here. When we watched Courageous with another couple I had to get her to contain her frustration as all of the terrible themes popped up. Courageous is better put together than Fireproof, and I found it engaging and entertaining. But I still chafed at the message. I have no question I would have seen all of this had I watched Fireproof in a similar setting. I took notes to prepare for the blog and to ensure that I didn’t have to watch it more than once, and I used the FF scan button with subtitles to expedite the process. This last part is fairly normal for my wife and I though. If a movie gets slow I’ll scan ahead past the emoting and get to where “something happens”.

@Looking Glass

solid directing (give the brothers credit, they’re pretty capable)

Agreed. I think Fireproof gets too much flack for being corny. Some of the dialog is stilted but in general it is entertaining, and some of the action scenes are very professional. Courageous is even better in this regard. I also thought that Alex Kendrick did an excellent job acting in Courageous, especially delivering the (awful) speech in the end. The man has talent, but what he is selling is toxic.

I’ve joked before that it seems like many Christians believe that, in Media, “beware the sin of competence”. There’s a huge Christian film market, mostly still done on VHS, that might be best categorized as “competence questionable”. And it’s really not far from the truth.

As for the Kendrick brothers, you might want to actually check out Facing the Giants. Of the 3 films of theirs I’ve seen at least parts of, it’s probably the best. Though I’d really have to sit through it again and watch it closely. It’s actually not really my thing (it’s far more drama than most sports movies should have), but it’s quite well shot and Alex actually feels like a high school football coach in the South. (That bit probably helps) [Amazingly enough, the football filming was done by someone that works at NFL films. Probably why the football scenes felt so well done.]

No disagreement on the product being toxic, but it’s much more subtle than most.

Along with Promise Keepers, I’d add Cursillo. It’s a three-day retreat, nominally Catholic, but so ecumenical that all the meat has to be stripped out of it. So people go off for a weekend and sing songs and repeat what few platitudes all Christians can agree on, and get all emotionally worked out about how Jesus is their BFF and they just lurve Him and want to lurve Him more and more forever. But since it’s all based on emotion and no real doctrine, it fades quickly when they get back home. It gives them strong feelings, but rarely seems to lead to a deeper appreciation of the realities of their faith.

Any time you get a group of people together and whip them into an emotional high, which is what films are good at but also happens at retreats like these, you’re going to get lightweight results that don’t mean much and don’t last. That’s not to say those methods shouldn’t be used, but they need to be built on a solid foundation so there’s something left when the feelings wear off.

Hadn’t heard of that one, but setup is really familiar. 3 days is a good opening to use emotions to “push people” into a new way. But it’s not enough to sustain or create an effective outreach program. But it makes you feel really good for those 3 days.

@Dalrock:

Oh yeah, “They Live” is a great B-movie. But it’s a bit dated and most wouldn’t get the reference, but it is much better, all told. The Matrix is just more culturally relevant. But I like the idea of being 80s Roddy Roddy Piper. Manly Kilt!

Regarding Catholics in comparison to Sheila Gregoire, as a Catholic myself, I can tell you that within the Church, women are supposed to only be able to do spiritual study or spiritual leadership under the direction of men (this is generally a function of the local bishop); if they are delegated to do this, they must stick to approved materials; if they are writing new material for publication, it needs a man’s review in order to receive the official approval of the Church. Given how women change their words as often as many of them do, one can readily see why the Church not only takes this position but is also against female priests, let alone bishops. Now we know that the Church let the major American nun community slide, but the Pope took his authority back firmly last year, something that was long overdue. But did y’all see the caterwauling around that?

@Natalie: a commonly used adjective among men is “batsh*t”. As in “she is batsh*t crazy”.

Looking Glass, here is why Dalrock’s “They Live” analogy is better than the “Matrix” analogy.
John Nada (Piper) wants to get another man to see the truth, by putting on the glasses.
Very simple. Just put on the glasses, and take a look at the world as it really is…

Cail CAlong with Promise Keepers, I’d add Cursillo. It’s a three-day retreat, nominally Catholic, but so ecumenical that all the meat has to be stripped out of it. So people go off for a weekend and sing songs and repeat what few platitudes all Christians can agree on, and get all emotionally worked out about how Jesus is their BFF and they just lurve Him and want to lurve Him more and more forever.

The Wiki entry on Cursillo may be interesting to some. I’ve heard of this under other names.

I am told (via the Net) that marriage is a big thing in the United States, and I have not seen – nor would I, here, be likely to – Fireproof, although having taken $30,000,000 in the United States in 2008 alone and on a budget of $500,000 it clearly strikes a chord with a lot of people; yet my response from the clip I have seen and from the summary that I have read is, ‘why, for heaven’s sake don’t they just divorce!’ – they seem so miserable, that the Fireman might have said ‘Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn’!

The last time I mentioned Fireproof here, I observed that by the standard of British Firemen the hero and his wife seem to live in a very upmarket house, and perhaps that is where the problem really is – you are all TOO rich. Talking of Firemen, the neice of my friend – an anchor girl on the local TV news – is this year marrying her fiancee, who is a Fireman – should I gently suggest that she might as well ditch her fiancee for a Medical Doctor, to save trouble later?

@looking glass
“- Christians are now “herd bound” as badly as any other part of the popular culture. If it’s popular, they want to get on it as well. This also explains Rollo’s point about making “Christian Friendly” versions of currently popular trends a few years after they hit.”

1 John 2 15-17:

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

It was eve that was deceived not adam in the same way due to this and the way that the problem that eve has is passed on to women which is why they are not permitted to teach or have authority over men.
1 Timothy 2:12-15
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But womena will be savedb through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

One reason I prefer the comparison to the sunglasses from “They Live” over the Red Pill is the suggestion of continuing discernment. I don’t know how many posts and comments I’ve seen by people who seem to think that taking the Red Pill (i.e. discovering Game or whatever), is instant Enlightenment about anything and everything. As the song says, “You may THINK you’re in Heaven.,…”

[a]s a Catholic myself, I can tell you that within the Church, women are supposed to only be able to do spiritual study or spiritual leadership under the direction of men …

This is true, but in practice today, women run many parishes. In some places, one priest is in charge of a few churches, and he stays busy just running around between them saying Mass, so laypeople — usually women — take over everything else. In others, it’s not that the priests are too busy, but that they’re so effeminate that they act like one of the girls and surround themselves with dominant women.

Also, women are just good at getting around things and rationalizing it. At my very traditional Catholic parish where women actually talk about things like submission, a fairly bossy woman talked some other women into studying a particular book she loved. There wasn’t anything wrong with the book — it has the Church’s imprimatur and everything — but it’s very advanced. A bunch of laypeople tackling it without any theology or even philosophy training would be like a bunch of Algebra I students deciding they’re going to teach themselves advanced calculus.

They needed a priest on board for this, because of what you said, but their pastor wouldn’t have gone for it. He would have suggested (and may have, actually) that they go with something easier, but she was set on this one book. So she got a priest she knew from some other city to approve it and agree to answer their questions via phone or email or whatever. Of course, that meant he couldn’t really oversee them, and soon the thing fell apart with the other women saying that the lead woman was dominating them and coming up with strange interpretations that they suspected weren’t in line with Catholic teaching. The first one actually pulled out when her husband suspected something wasn’t right and forbade her from going, and then the others followed suit after a while.

I guess the lesson is that even women who normally have their heads in the right place do still struggle with the sin of Eve, and need guidelines and boundaries set by good husbands and the Church to stay out of trouble.

The “They Live” glasses (and eventually contacts) is a better analogy, but it’s a B-movie from 1988. The Matrix is a genre-changing box office success with a deep culture resonance from 1999. That’s kind of the difference.

They Live is a pretty fun film, if you haven’t seen it. Probably also the best Main-Character Wrestler movie. (Which isn’t saying much, but it is what it is)

The problem with “Matrix” analogies is pretty obvious: unlearning feminism and betatude is not a one-time, one-red-pill process.That’s because we are soaking in feminism, we are immersed in lies. If a man or woman is not actively thinking in an anti-feminist way, then it is pretty typical to drift back to passive feminism – the default mode for western civilization at this time. The Matrix is nothing like that, has nothing like that. Lately I’ve been thinking that it’s more like weight training; every day of training makes a man stronger, every day of slacking and going with the flow makes him weaker.

I could harken back to Plato’s analogy of people trapped in a cave, seeing shadows on the wall, their eyes unsuited to sunlight, too. But not many people even read the Cliff’s Notes version of Plato any more, so it would not be very useful.

The goal is, among other things, to persuade people of the wrongness of certain generally accepted ideas. Therefore, the message has to be tailored to the audience, and so I agree that the Matrix idea will work best with some. With others, especially people who did not see the movie, eh, not so much. But it is essential that the “one red pill and you are good to go” notion not be part of the message, because unlearning falsehoods is not easy.

@ Sarah’s Daughter
“His threshold had been breached, the weight of not having my complete submission all those years along with rightful anger brought him to a resolve that our marriage would not continue as is. He had no intentions on divorcing me but remained emotionally detached until I repented of my rebellion and asked his and God’s forgiveness.”

I have come to a similar point with my wife. Her rebellion is not blatant or obvious, but a subtle and beneath the surface one that rises up on occasion.

What did he do that was emotionally detached? Were any of those detachment actions contrary to scripture? (don’t want to go too far)
Did he tell you your need for repentance and to ask forgiveness or just wait for you to figure it out? How did you demonstrate your repentance in a believable way?

What Samuel Solomon says above is key for me…in regards to sexual matters the husband has the final say as to if, when, where and how sex happens because wives are to submit to their husbands in EVERYTHING. The mental gymnastics most Christian women employ to twist scripture in order to avoid their responsibility of full physical submission to their husbands is mindblowing. It is unbelievable to me how most Christian women attempting to give advice to other women on their duty to respect and obey always end up listing conditions and caveats under which their submission can be denied. Whether a husband is living up to his end of the bargain to love and cherish his wife is irrelevant. She is to submit regardless of anything he does or does not do. It churns my stomach to read so many blogs of ungrateful, rebellious women who are not worthy of having a Christian husband. I would do anything to have such a husband as mine saw fit to leave me for another woman a year ago, despite my efforts to submit in all ways. I rarely comment on here as this is primarily a forum for men’s voices (and it’s refreshing to see so many men who feel and write passionately on this subject) but I felt compelled to give this opinion. It would seem that there are too few women who understand what true Biblical submission actually means and it’s extremely disheartening.

@jsrI have come to a similar point with my wife. Her rebellion is not blatant or obvious, but a subtle and beneath the surface one that rises up on occasion.

What did he do that was emotionally detached? Were any of those detachment actions contrary to scripture? (don’t want to go too far)
Did he tell you your need for repentance and to ask forgiveness or just wait for you to figure it out? How did you demonstrate your repentance in a believable way?

I tell a lot of it in A Love story. RLB has asked that I tell you to feel free to ask him any questions you’d like over there.

As far as what you’ve asked here: he refused to allow an argument to escalate. If I attempted to go off on tangents from what we were initially talking about, he would hang up on me (when he was in Africa). Once home he would either leave the room or go to sleep. He absolutely refused to respond to any leading questions. If he had told me something once, that was all I was going to hear it (absolute refusal to supplicate). I was asking him leading questions about whether or not he had been unfaithful. He had told me he hadn’t. Yet my insecure mind would dream of ways to poke and prod for more information. He was very stern and to the point, “I’ve answered your questions, now get over yourself.” NOT once did he fail my shit test – the one that was begging for him to say, “oh honey, I would never do that to you, I treasure our relationship blah blah blah.”

No, nothing he did was contrary to scripture. It was all quite biblical and the very expression of Agape I needed. You’ll read about that in the post I’ve linked. No, he never told me of my need for repentance or that I needed to ask him for forgiveness. It became very clear to me, once I stopped giving in to fear and started putting my trust in God, that that was what I needed to do. And I did so with a humble heart. For three years I have demonstrated my repentance in a believable way. I submit to him in all things and when I mess up I ask for forgiveness. My mannerisms do not contradict my words (I do not huff, or roll my eyes. My eyes brighten when I see him and I’m attentive to his needs.) In another post Justin the Marine and a very important vow I discuss his physical injury this past year that could have derailed this commitment to God’s commands if it were at all shallow. I know we serve a mighty God. In all we’ve been through this past year, nothing in my heart has been swayed. I am no longer an unsympathetic, judgmental, or questioning wife.

His resolve has remained, though I rarely shit test him anymore (when my mind thinks of something, I stave it off with prayer and recognize its evil source before I open my mouth). I have no doubt that should I do it again, he will respond in the same way he did when he made the change. Prior to his deployment, though we were agreeable in most things, his Delta tendencies would feed my irrational behavior. So what felt like emotional detachment because of how different it was, it was in reality him being the rock he needed to become in all of his relationships.

Hi folks, I’ve been lurking for a little while and wanted to introduce myself. It looks like comments on Dalrock’s posts can range off subject a little, so I figured I’d just pick a post and start talking.

Damn… so it’s really this bad? My wife are in our 7th year of marriage, and last year our relationship hit bottom. One night, frustrated as hell, I point-blank asked why we bother? If we really were this miserable, why stay together? We have no kids, no mortgage, and remain highly economically mobile (good jobs, transferable skills). My wife was pretty shocked. I was, too.

Much longer story much shortened: did some marriage/sex therapy, discovered Athol Kay (and by extension, many other good game/marriage/relationship sites), and decided brutally to be a better husband. But NOT like I’ve always heard in church. Not in the sense that it’s all the guy’s fault. I can’t count the number of times the feminized Christian culture (of which we are years removed from, thankfully).

Anyway, I say all this because I TOTALLY empathize with a lot of guys/comments I’ve read these last few months. I knew and practiced a decent amount of game before I met my wife (and when we met, and even into our marriage) and mainly needed some fine-tuning of the alpha skill-set and an increase in beta skill-set.

But yeah… like Athol and others say, I can only control me. I was also really lucky in that I married a GOOD woman who responds even better than I hoped to fine-tuning game and skill-sets. Some good friends (and my brother, even) have not been as lucky, or tried to be the kind of guy whose wife grabs his penis every time he walks by.

I really want that for the guys I know. It’s damn good. I’m glad for Dalrock, Athol, and (most) of the folks’ comments I’ve seen. Anyway–hello all, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

@T: “Would someone please explain what submission looks like in a biblical marriage.”

See Peaceful Wife’s blog at http://peacefulwife.com. I started to say that you probably won’t like it, but instead I’ll just ask that you let us know what you think after you’ve been through her materials.

Sorry about old email but all I can say first is anyone who not prayed receive Christ Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.”
If you decided to repent of your sins and receive Christ today, welcome to God’s family. Now, as a way to grow closer to Him, the Bible tells us to follow up on our commitment.
Get baptized as commanded by Christ.
Tell someone else about your new faith in Christ.
Spend time with God each day. It does not have to be a long period of time. Just develop the daily habit of praying to Him and reading His Word. Ask God to increase your faith and your understanding of the Bible.
Seek fellowship with other followers of Jesus. Develop a group of believing friends to answer your questions and support you.
Find a local church where you can worship God.
Reply
anon says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 2, 2013 at 12:27 am
Other comment wish to make other than people,make sure are saved is both in marriage have to confess all known sins and fornication etc. Have go thru in detail and revisit each relationship confess out all out and feel pain out yo get breakthrough and yes u will cry a lot but it necessary refeel pain out any past stuff out. Must also ask Lord to break any and all soul ties off with each person in mind heart body soul spirit go here http://www.furyoffaithministries.org/Deliver-breaking_soul_ties.html found this be very good useful show people how break soul ties off old partners. Must also forgive. Walk thru each confessional detail clear it soul out both husband and wife must be commit to process. Also spouses must preach gospel constantly and consistently or u become like a desert. Must obey Lord keep living waters flowing. Also nonstop open air preaching will give u breakthrough. Best marriages come from one’s will go deepest confessions and deliverance feeling guilt out of do past sins plus crying from any done to you face fears of refeeelingal pain out plus high level of obeying Lord on constant basis in sharing Christ in these days soon man woman and child will have open air preach nonstop. R u ready for all forms of persecution coming. There a demon coming that gonna make people feel separated from God the only way out is open air preach nonstop. Be ready and willing make Christ number one and obey Him above man. Be ready for all persecutions. If God say confess a sin obey without hesitation. Let whole life change let all be about Lord 24/7 Sharon Him. Music about Him etc